HOME  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 


HOME  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
OF  MODERN  KNOWLEDGE 

No.  50 

Editor  t: 

HERBERT    FISHER,  M.A.,  P.B.A. 
PROF.  GILBERT  MURRAY,  LiTT.D., 

LL.D.,  F.B.A. 

PROF.  J.  ARTHUR    THOMSON,  M.A. 
PROP.  WILLIAM  T.  BREWSTER,  M.A. 


THE  HOME  UNIVERSITY  LIBEARY 
OF  MODERN  KNOWLEDGE 

i6mo  cloth,  50  cents  net,  by  mail  56  cents 
PHILOSOPHY  AND  RELIGION 

Just  Published 
PROBLEMS  OF  PHILOSOPHY  .  By  BERTRAND  RUSSELL 

BUDDHISM By  MRS.  RHYS  DAVIDS 

ENGLISH    SECTS By  W.  B.  SELBIE 

THE    MAKING    OF    THE    NEW 

TESTAMENT t  By  B.  W.  BACON 

ETHICS ByG.  E.MOORE 

MISSIONS By  MRS.  CREIGHTON 

Future  Issues 

THE   OLD  TESTAMENT  ....  By  GEORGE  MOORE 
BETWEEN  THE  OLD  AND  NEW 

TESTAMENTS By  R.  H.  CHARLES 

COMPARATIVE     RELIGION  .   .  By  J.  ESTLIN  CARPENTEB 
A  HISTORY  OF  FREEDOM   OF 

THOUGHT ByJ.  B.  BURY 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE 
NEW  TESTAMENT 


BY 


BENJAMIN    W.  BACON,  D.D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM 
AND  EXEGESIS  IN  YALE  UNIVERSITY 


NEW   YORK 
HENRY   HOLT  AND   COMPANY 

LONDON 
WILLIAMS   AND   NORGATE 


COPYRIGHT,  1912, 

BY 

HENRY    HOLT   AND    COMPANY 


MORSE  STEPHENS 


THE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS,   CAMBRIDGE,    U.S.A. 


CONTENTS 

PART  I 

CANONIZATION    AND    CRITICISM 

CHAP.  PAGE 

I     INSPIRATION  AND  CANONIZATION 7 

II     THE  REACTION  TO  CRITICISM 33 

PART  II 

THE    LITERATURE    OF   THE    APOSTLE 

III  PAUL  AS   MISSIONARY  AND  DEFENDER  OF  THE 

GOSPEL  OF  GRACE 56 

IV  PAUL  AS  PRISONER  AND  CHURCH  FATHER    .     .       83 
V    PSEUDO -APOSTOLIC  EPISTLES 104 

PART  III 

THE  LITERATURE  OF  CATECHIST  AND  PROPHET 

VI     THE  MATTH^EAN  TRADITION   OF  THE   PRECEPTS 

OF  JESUS 128 

VII     THE  PETBINE  TRADITION.     EVANGELIC  STORY  .  154 

VIII    THE  JOHANNINE  TRADITION.    PROPHECY  .     .     .  185 

V 


511J41 


vi  CONTENTS 

PART  IV 

THE    LITERATURE    OF    THE    THEOLOGIAN 
CHAP.  PAGE 

IX    THE  SPIRITUAL  GOSPEL  AND  EPISTLES      .     .     .     206 

X    EPILOGUES  AND  CONCLUSIONS 933 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 251 

INDEX ,    255 


THE  MAKING  OF  THE 
NEW  TESTAMENT 

PART  I 

CANONIZATION   AND  CRITICISM 

CHAPTER  I 

INSPIRATION  AND   CANONIZATION 

THE  New  Testament  presents  the  paradox 
of  a  literature  born  of  protest  against  the 
tyranny  of  a  canon,  yet  ultimately  canonized 
itself  through  an  increasing  demand  for-x 
external  authority.  This  paradox  is  full  of 
significance.  We  must  examine  it  more 
closely. 

The  work  of  Jesus  was  a  consistent  effortJ> 
to  set  religion  free  from  the  deadening  system 
of  the  scribes.  He  was  conscious  of  a  direct, 
divine  authority.  The  broken  lights  of  former 
inspiration  are  lost  in  the  full  dawn  of  God's/ 
presence  to  His  soul. 

*   So  with  Paul.    The  key  to  Paul's  thought  ^ 
is  his  revolt  against  legalism.     It  had  been 
part  of  his  servitude  to  persecute  the  sect 
which  claimed  to  know  another  Way  besides 
7 


8     /MAKPW; '  ft?  -NEW  TESTAMENT 

the  "way"1  of  the  scribes.  These  Christians 
signalized  their  faith  by  the  rite  of  baptism, 
and  gloried  in  the  sense  of  endowment  with 
"the  Spirit."  Saul  was  profoundly  conscious 
of  the  yoke;  only  he  had  not  dreamed  that 
his  own  deliverance  could  come  from  such  a 
quarter.  But  contact  with  victims  of  the 
type  of  Stephen,  men  "filled  with  the  Spirit," 
conscious  of  the  very  "power  from  God"  for 
lack  of  which  his  soul  was  fainting,  could  not 
but  have  some  effect.  It  came  suddenly, 
overwhelmingly.  The  real  issue,  as  Saul  saw 
it,  both  before  and  after  his  conversion,  was 
Law  versus  Grace.  In  seeking  "justifica- 
tion" by  favour  of  Jesus  these  Christians  were 
opening  a  new  and  living  way  to  acceptance 
with  God.  Traitorous  and  apostate  as  the 
attempt  must  seem  while  the  way  of  the  Law 
still  gave  promise  of  success,  to  souls  sinking 
like  Saul's  deeper  and  deeper  into  the  despair- 
ing consciousness  of  "the  weakness  of  the 
flesh"  forgiveness  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
might  prove  to  be  light  and  life  from  God. 
The  despised  sect  of  'sinners'  whom  he 
had  been  persecuting  expressed  the  essence 
of  their  faith  in  the  doctrine  that  the  gift 
of  the  Spirit  of  Jesus  had  made  them  sons 
and  heirs  of  God.  If  the  converted  Paul  in 
turn  is  uplifted — "energized,"  as  he  terms 
it — even  beyond  his  fellow-Christians,  by 

1  Tarik,  i.  e.  "way,"  is  still  the  Arabic  term  for  a  sect, 
and  the  Rabbinic  term  for  legal  requirement  is  halacha,  i.  e. 
"walk." 


INSPIRATION  AND  CANONIZATION    9 

the  sense  of  present  inspiration,  it  is  no  more 
than  we  should  expect. 

Paul's  conversion  to  the  new  faith — or  at 
least  his  persistent  satisfaction  in  it — will  be 
inexplicable  unless  we  appreciate  the  logic 
of  his  recognition  in  it  of  an  inherent  opposi- 
tion to  the  growing  demands  of  legalism. 
Jesus  had,  in  truth,  led  a  revolt  against  mere 
book-religion.  His  chief  opponents  were  the 
scribes,  the  devotees  and  exponents  of  a 
sacred  scripture,  the  Law.  "Law"  and 
"Prophets,"  the  one  prescribing  the  con- 
ditions of  the  expected  transcendental  King- 
dom, the  other  illustrating  their  application 
and  guaranteeing  their  promise,  constituted 
the  canon  of  the  synagogue.  Judaism  had  \ 
become  a  religion  of  written  authority. 
Jesus  set  over  against  this  a  direct  relation 
to  the  living  Father  in  heaven,  ever  presently 
revealed  to  the  filial  spirit.  The  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  makes  the  doing  of  this  Father's 
will  something  quite  other  than  servitude  to 
written  precepts  interpreted  by  official  au- 
thority and  imposed  under  penalty.  It  is  to 
be  self-discipline  in  the  Father's  spirit  of  dis- 
interested goodness,  as  revealed  in  everyday^ 
experience. 

Even  the  reward  of  this  self -discipline,  the 
Kingdom,  Jesus  did  not  conceive  quite  as 
the  scribes.  To  them  obedience  in  this 
world  procured  a  "share  in  the  world  to 
come."  To  Him  the  reward  was  more  a 
matter  of  being  than  of  getting.  The  King- 


10     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

dom  was  an  heir-apparency;  and,  therefore, 
present  as  well  as  future.  It  was  "within" 
and  "among"  men  as  well  as  before  them. 
They  should  seek  to  "be  sons  and  daughters 
of  the  Highest,"  taking  for  granted  that  all 
other  good  things  would  be  "added."  So 
Jesus  made  religion  live  again.  It  became 
spiritual,  inward,  personal,  actual. 

After  John  the  Baptist's  ministry  to  what 
we  should  call  the  'unchurched'  masses, 
Jesus  took  up  their  cause.  He  became  the 
"friend"  and  champion  of  the  "little  ones," 
the  "publicans  and  sinners,"  the  mixed 
'people  of  the  land'  in  populous,  half -hea- 
then, Galilee.  The  burdens  imposed  by  the 
scribes  in  the  name  of  'Scripture'  were  ac- 
cepted with  alacrity  by  the  typical  Pharisee 
unaffected  by  Pauline  misgivings  of  'moral 
inability.'  To  "fulfil  all  righteousness"  was 
to  the  Pharisee  untainted  by  Hellenism  a 
pride  and  delight.  To  the  "lost  sheep  of 
Israel"  whom  Jesus  addressed,  remote  from 
temple  and  synagogue,  this  "righteousness" 
had  proved  (equally  as  to  Paul,  though  on 
very  different  grounds)  "a  yoke  which  neither 
we  nor  our  fathers  were  able  to  bear."  Jesus 
"had  compassion  on  the  multitude."  To 
them  He  "spoke  with  authority";  and  yet 
"not  as  the  scribes"  but  as  "a  prophet." 
When  challenged  by  the  scribes  for  His 
authority  He  referred  to  "the  baptism  of 
John,"  and  asked  whether  John's  commission 
was  "from  heaven,  or  of  men."  They 


INSPIRATION  AND  CANONIZATION    11 

admitted  that  John  was  "a  prophet."  Those 
who  give  utterance  after  this  manner  to  the 
simple,  sincere  conviction  of  the  soul,  voicing 
its  instinctive  aspiration  toward  "the  things 
that  be  of  God,"  are  conscious  that  they 
speak  not  of  themselves. 

Jesus,  it  is  true,  was  no  iconoclast.  He  took 
pains  to  make  clear  that  if  He  superseded  what 
they  of  old  time  had  taught  as  righteousness, 
it  was  in  the  interest  of  a  higher,  a  "righteous- 
ness of  God."  If  He  disregarded  fasts  and 
sabbaths,  it  was  to  put  substance  for  form, 
end  for  means.  "Judgment,  mercy,  and  good 
faith"  should  count  more  than  tithes  from 
"mint  and  anise  and  cummin."  He  echoed 
what  John  the  Baptist  had  taught  of  re- 
pentance and  forgiveness.  Hope  should  no 
longer  be  based  on  birth,  or  prerogative,  or 
ritual  form,  but  on  the  mercy  of  a  God  who 
demands  that  we  forgive  if  we  would  be  for- 
given. Such  had  been,  however,  the  message 
not  of  John  only,  but  of  all  the  prophets  before 
him:  "I  will  have  mercy,  and  not  sacrifice." 
Jesus  taught  this  higher,  inward,  righteous- 
ness; but  not  merely  as  John  had  done. 
John  had  said :  Repent,  for  the  wrath  of  God 
is  at  hand.  Jesus  said:  Repent,  for  the 
forgiveness  of  God  is  open.  The  Father's 
heart  yearns  over  the  wayward  sons.  Jesus 
preached  the  nearness  of  the  Kingdom  as 
"glad  tidings  to  the  poor";  and  among  these 
"poor"  were  included  even  aliens  who  put 
"faith"  in  the  God  of  Abraham. 


12     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

The  new  Way  started  from  the  same  Scrip- 
ture as  that  of  the  scribes,  but  it  tended 
in  an  opposite  direction.  Theirs  had  been 
gradually  developing  in  definiteness  and 
authority  since  the  time  of  Ezra;  yes,  since 
Josiah  had  made  formal  covenant,  after  the 
discovery  of  "the  book  of  the  Law"  in  the 
temple,  pledging  himself  and  his  people  to 
obedience.  As  with  many  ancient  peoples, 
the  codification  of  the  ancient  law  had  been 
followed  by  its  canonization,  and  as  the 
national  life  had  waned  the  religious  signifi- 
cance of  the  Law  had  increased.  It  was  now 
declared  to  express  the  complete  will  of  God, 
for  an  ideal  people  of  God,  in  a  renovated 
universe,  whose  centre  was  to  be  a  new  and 
glorified  Jerusalem.  The  Exile  interrupted 
for  a  time  the  process  of  formal  development; 
but  in  the  ecclesiastical  reconstruction  which 
followed  in  Ezra's  time  "the  book  of  the  Law" 
had  become  all  the  more  supreme;  the  scribe 
took  the  place  of  the  civil  officer,  the  syna- 
gogue became  local  sanctuary  and  court-house 
in  one,  the  nation  became  a  church,  Israel 
became  'the  people  of  the  book.' 

Legal  requirement  calls  for  the  incentive 
of  reward.  We  need  not  wonder,  then,  that 
the  canon  of  the  Law  was  soon  supplemented 
by  that  of  the  writings  of  the  Prophets, 
historical  and  hortatory.  The  former  were 
considered  to  interpret  the  Law  by  showing 
its  application  in  practice,  the  latter  were 
valued  for  their  predictive  element.  Law 


INSPIRATION  AND  CANONIZATION    13 

and  Prophets  were  supplemented  by  Psalms, 
and  elements  from  the  later  literature  having 
application  to  the  religious  system.  The  most 
influential  were  the  "apocalypses,"  or  "reve- 
lations" of  the  transcendental  Kingdom  and 
of  the  conditions  and  mode  of  its  coming. 
Scripture  had  thus  become  an  embodiment 
of  Israel's  religion.  It  set  forth  the  national 
law,  civil,  criminal,  or  religious;  and  the 
national  hope,  the  Kingdom  of  God.  Its 
custodian  and  interpreter  was  the  'scribe,' 
lawyer  and  cleric  in  one.  The  scribe  held 
"the  key  of  knowledge";  to  him  it  was 
given  to  'bind  and  loose,'  'open  and  shut.' 
Any  preacher  who  presumed  to  prescribe  a 
righteousness  apart  from  'the  yoke  of  the 
Law,'  or  to  promise  forgiveness  of  sins  on 
other  authority,  must  reckon  with  the  scribes. 
He  would  be  regarded  as  seeking  to  'take  the, 
Kingdom  by  violence.' 

Jesus'  martyrdom  was  effected  through  the 
priests,  the  temple  authorities;  but  at  the 
instigation  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees. 
His  adherents  were  soon  after  driven  out 
from  orthodox  Judaism  and  subjected  to 
persecution.  This  persecution,  however,  soon 
found  its  natural  leadership,  not  among  the 
Sadducean  temple-priesthood,  but  among  the 
devotees  of  the  Law.  It  was  "in  the  syna- 
gogues." From  having  been  quasi-political 
it  became  distinctly  religious.  This  persecu- 
tion by  the  Pharisees  is  on  the  whole  less 
surprising  than  the  fact  that  so  many  of  the 


14     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Jewish  believers  should  have  continued  to 
regard  themselves  as  consistent  Pharisees, 
and  even  been  so  regarded  by  their  fellow- 
Jews.  In  reality  Jewish  Christians  as  a  rule 
could  see  no  incompatibility  between  average 
synagogue  religion  and  their  acceptance  of 
Jesus  as  the  man  supernaturally  attested  in 
the  resurrection  as  destined  to  return  bringing 
the  glory  of  the  Kingdom.  Jesus'  idea  of 
'  righteousness '  did  not  seem  to  them  irrecon- 
cilable with  the  legalism  of  the  scribes;  still 
less  had  they  felt  the  subtle  difference  between 
his  promise  "Ye  shall  be  sons  and  daughters 
of  the  Highest"  and  the  apocalyptic  dreams 
which  they  shared  with  their  fellow-Jews. 
Saul  the  persecutor  and  Paul  the  apostle 
were  more  logical.  In  Gal.  ii.  15-21  we  have 
Paul's  own  statement  of  the  essential  issue 
as  it  still  appeared  to  his  clear  mind.  Average 
synagogue  religion  still  left  room  for  a  more 
fatherly  relation  of  God  to  the  individual,  in 
spite  of  the  gradual  encroachment  of  the 
legalistic  system  of  the  scribes.  Men  not 
sensitive  to  inconsistency  could  find  room 
within  the  synagogue  for  the  'paternal 
theism'  of  Jesus,  even  if  this  must  more  and 
more  be  placed  under  the  head  of  '  un- 
co venanted  mercies.'  To  Paul,  however,  the 
dilemma  is  absolute.  One  must  trust  either  to 
"law"  or  "grace."  Partial  reliance  on  the 
one  is  to  just  that  extent  negation  of  faith 
in  the  other.  The  system  of  written  precept 
permits  no  exception,  tolerates  no  divided 


INSPIRATION  AND  CANONIZATION    15 

allegiance.  If  the  canon  of  written  law  be  the 
God-given  condition  of  the  messianic  promise, 
then  no  man  can  aspire  to  share  in  the  hope 
of  Israel  who  does  not  submit  unreservedly 
to  its  yoke.  Conversely,  faith  is  not  faith 
if  one  seek  to  supplement  it  by  the  merit  of 
"works  of  law." 

From  this  point  of  view  the  Jew  who  seeks 
forgiveness  of  sins  by  baptism  "into  the  name 
of  Jesus"  must  be  considered  an  apostate 
from  the  Law.  He  acknowledges  thereby 
that  he  is  following  another  Way,  a  way  of 
"grace,"  a  short-cut,  as  it  were,  to  a  share  in 
Israel's  messianic  inheritance  by  the  "favour" 
of  a  pretended  Messiah.  The  same  Paul  who 
after  his  conversion  maintains  (Gal.  ii.  21) 
that  to  seek  "justification"  through  the 
Law  makes  the  grace  of  God  of  none  effect, 
must  conversely  have  held  before  conversion 
that  to  seek  it  by  "grace"  of  Jesus  made  the 
Law  of  none  effect.  Even  at  the  time  of  writ- 
ing the  axiom  still  held:  No  resistance  to  the 
yoke  of  the  Law,  no  persecution  (Gal.  v.  11). 

It  is  true,  then,  that  the  legalistic  system  of 
prescription  and  reward  had  developed — 
could  develop — only  at  the  expense  of  the 
less  mechanical,  more  fatherly,  religion  of  a 
Hosea  or  an  Isaiah.  Even  scribes  had  ad- 
mitted that  the  law  of  love  was  "much  more 
than  all  whole  burnt-offering  and  sacrifice." 
And  the  movement  of  the  Baptist  and  of 
Jesus  had  really  been  of  the  nature  of  a 
reaction  toward  this  older,  simpler  faith. 


16      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

The  sudden  revolt  in  Paul's  own  mind  against 
the  scribal  system  might  not  have  occurred 
in  the  mind  of  a  Pharisee  unfamiliar  with 
Greek  ideas.  But  to  some  extent  Paul's 
experience  of  the  conflict  of  flesh  and  spirit, 
a  '  moral  inability '  to  meet  the  Law's  demands 
was  a  typical  Christian  experience,  as  Paul 
felt  it  to  be.  To  him  it  became  the  basis  of 
an  independent  gospel.  To  him  the  Cross 
and  the  Spirit  imparted  from  the  risen  Messiah 
were  tokens  from  God  that  the  dispensation 
of  Law  is  ended  and  a  dispensation  of  Grace 
and  Sonship  begun.  Without  this  Pauline 
gospel  about  Jesus  Christianity  could  never 
have  become  more  than  a  sect  of  reformed 
Judaism. 

The  teaching  and  martyrdom  of  Jesus  had 
thus  served  to  bring  out  a  deep  and  real 
antithesis.  Only,  men  who  had  not  passed 
like  Paul  from  the  extreme  of  trust  in  legal- 
ism  to  a  corresponding  extremity  of  despair 
might  be  pardoned  for  some  insensibility  to 
this  inconsistency.  We  can  appreciate  that 
James  and  Peter  might  honestly  hold  them- 
selves still  under  obligation  of  the  written  law, 
even  while  we  admit  Paul's  logic  that  any  man 
who  had  once  "sought  to  be  justified  in 
Christ"  could  not  turn  back  in  any  degree 
to  legal  observance  without  being  "self -con- 
demned." 

Christianity  may  be  said  to  have  attained 
self-consciousness  as  a  new  religion  in  the 
great  argument  directed  by  Paul  along  the 


INSPIRATION  AND  CANONIZATION    17 

lines  of  his  own  gospel  against  Peter  and  the 
older  apostles.  Its  victory  as  a  universal 
religion  of  'grace'  over  the  limitations  of 
Judaism  was  due  to  the  common  doctrine  of 
'the  Spirit.'  This  was  the  one  point  of 
agreement,  the  one  hope  of  ultimate  concord 
among  the  contending  parties.  All  were 
agreed  that  endowment  with  'the  Spirit' 
marks  the  Christian.  It  was  in  truth  the 
great  inheritance  from  Jesus  shared  by  all 
in  common.  And  Peter  and  James  admitted 
that  to  deny  that  uncircumcized  Gentiles  had 
received  the  Spirit  was  to  "contend  against 
God." 

After  Paul's  death  ecclesiastical  develop- 
ment took  mostly  the  road  of  the  synagogue. 
The  sense  of  the  presence  and  authority  of 
'the  Spirit'  grew  weaker,  the  authority  of 
the  letter  stronger.  From  the  outset  even 
the  Pauline  churches,  in  ritual,  order,  observ- 
ance, had  followed  instinctively  this  pattern. 
All  continued,  as  a  matter  of  course,  to  use 
the  synagogue's  sacred  writings.  Paul  him- 
self, spite  of  his  protest  against  "the  letter," 
could  make  no  headway  against  his  oppon- 
ents, save  by  argument  from  'Scripture.'  He 
had  found  in  it  anticipations  and  predictions 
of  his  own  Christian  faith;  but  by  an  exegesis 
often  only  little  less  forced  and  fantastic  than 
that  of  the  rabbinic  schools  in  which  he  had 
been  trained.  This  was  a  necessity  of  the 
times.  The  reasoning,  fallacious  as  it  seems 
to-day,  had  appealed  to  and  strengthened 


18     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Paul's  own  faith,  and  was  probably  effective 
with  others,  even  if  the  faith  really  rested  on 
other  grounds  than  the  reasoning  by  which 
it  was  defended.  The  results  of  this  biblicism 
were  not  all  salutary.  The  claims  of  written 
authority  were  loosened  rather  than  broken. 
Paul  himself  had  found  room  enough  within 
these  defences  for  the  religion  of  the  Spirit; 
but  a  generation  was  coming  with  less  of  the 
sense  of  present  inspiration.  Dependence  on 
past  authority  would  be  increased  in  this  new 
generation  in  direct  proportion  to  its  sense 
of  the  superior  'inspiration'  of  the  genera- 
tion which  had  gone  before.  Paul  is  un- 
hampered by  even  "the  scriptures  of  the 
prophets"  because  in  his  view  these  take  all 
their  authority  and  meaning  from  "the  Lord, 
the  Spirit."  Hence  "where  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord  is,  there  is  liberty."  Only  the  remem- 
bered "word  of  the  Lord"  has  authority  for 
Paul  beyond  his  own,  even  when  he  thinks 
that  he  also  has  the  Spirit.  With  that 
exception  past  revelation  is  for  Paul  sub- 
ordinate to  present.  But  Paul's  immediate 
disciple,  the  author  of  Hebrews,  is  already  on 
a  lower  plane.  This  writer  looks  back  to  a 
threefold  source  of  authority :  God  had  spoken 
in  former  ages  "by  the  prophets"  and  to  the 
present  "by  a  Son,"  but  he  looks  also  to  an 
apostolic  authority  higher  than  his  own:  The 
word  "was  confirmed  unto  us  by  them  that 
heard,  God  also  bearing  witness  with  them, 
both  by  signs  and  wonders,  and  by  manifold 


INSPIRATION  AND  CANONIZATION    19 

powers,  and  by  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Similarly  the  author  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles 
(90-100  ?)  holds  the  "pattern of  sound  words  " 
heard  from  Paul  as  a  "sacred  deposit,"  which 
is  "guarded,"  rather  than  revealed,  "by  the 
Holy  Spirit."  The  "sound  words"  in  ques- 
tion are  defined  to  be  "the  words  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ."  These,  taken  together  with 
"the  doctrine  which  is  according  to  godli- 
ness," fix  the  standard  of  orthodoxy.  To 
"Jude"  (100-110  ?)  the  faith  is  something 
"once  for  all  delivered  to  the  saints."  His 
message  is:  "Remember,  beloved,  the  words 
spoken  before  by  the  apostles  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ."  Authority  increases,  the  sense 
of  the  revealing  Spirit  decreases. 

It  is  long  before  the  sense  of  present  inspira- 
tion, both  in  word  and  work,  is  lost;  still 
longer  before  the  recorded  precepts  of  Jesus, 
the  exhortations  and  directions  of  apostles, 
the  visions  of  "prophets,"  come  to  take  their 
place  alongside  the  Bible  of  the  synagogue 
as  "writings  of  the  new  covenant."  Melito 
of  Sardis  (c.  170)  is  the  first  to  use  this 
expression,  and  even  in  his  case  it  does  not 
bear  the  sense  of  a  canon  with  definite  limits. 
Tertullian  (200-210)  is  the  first  to  place  a 
definite  "New  Testament"  over  against  the 
Old.  We  must  glance  at  some  of  the  inter- 
mediate steps  to  appreciate  this  gradual 
process  of  canonization. 

At  first  there  is  no  other  'Scripture*  than 
the  synagogue's.  Clement  of  Rome  (95) 


20     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

still  uses  only  the  Law  and  the  Prophets 
(including  certain  apocrypha  now  lost)  as 
his  Bible.  He  refers  to  the  precepts  of  Jesus 
(quoted  as  in  Acts  xx.  35  from  oral  tradition), 
with  the  same  sense  as  Paul  of  their  para- 
mount authority,  and  bids  the  Corinthians 
whom  he  addresses  give  heed  to  what  the 
blessed  Apostle  Paul  had  written  to  them  "in 
the  beginning  of  the  gospel  service,"  to  warn 
them  against  factiousness.  Nor  has  Clement 
yet  lost  the  sense  of  direct  inspiration;  for 
he  attaches  to  his  own  epistle,  written  in 
behalf  of  the  church  at  Rome,  the  same 
superhuman  authority  claimed  in  Acts  xv. 
28  for  the  letter  sent  by  the  church  at 
Jerusalem.  If  the  Corinthians  disregard  the 
"words  spoken  by  God  through  us"  they  will 
"incur  no  slight  transgression  and  danger," 
for  these  warnings  of  a  sister  church  are  ut- 
tered in  the  name  and  by  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Still,  Clement  does  not  dream  of 
comparing  his  authority,  even  when  he  writes 
as  agent  of  the  church,  with  that  of  "the 
oracles  of  the  teaching  of  God,"  the  "sacred 
Scriptures,"  the  "Scriptures  which  are  true, 
which  were  given  through  the  Holy  Ghost, 
wherein  is  written  nothing  unrighteous  or 
counterfeit."  He  does  not  even  rank  his 
own  authority  with  that  of  "the  good  apos- 
tles, Peter  and  Paul." 

Ingatius,  bishop  of  Antioch,  transported 
to  Rome  for  martyrdom  in  110-117,  employs 
a  brief  stay  among  the  churches  of  Asia  to 


INSPIRATION  AND  CANONIZATION    21 

exhort  them  to  resist  the  encroachments  of 
heresy  by  consolidation  of  church  organiza- 
tion, discipline,  strict  obedience  to  the  bishop. 
Ignatius,  too,  still  feels  the  afflatus.  His 
message,  he  declares  with  emphasis,  was 
revealed  to  him,  together  with  the  occasion 
for  it,  directly  from  heaven.  It  was  "the 
voice  of  God  and  not  only  of  a  man"  when  he 
cried  out  among  the  Philadelphians:  "Give 
heed  to  the  bishop,  and  the  presbytery  and 
deacons."  Yet  Ignatius  cannot  enjoin  the 
Romans  as  Peter  and  Paul  did.  They  were 
"apostles."  He  is  "a  convict."  His  inspira- 
tion, however  undoubted,  is  of  a  lower  order. 

Hernias,  a  'prophet'  of  the  same  Roman 
church  as  Clement,  though  a  generation  later, 
is  still  so  conscious  of  the  superhuman  char- 
acter of  his  "Visions,"  "Parables,"  and 
"Mandates"  that  he  gives  them  out  for 
circulation  as  inspired  messages  of  the  Spirit; 
and  this  not  for  Rome  alone.  Clement,  then 
apparently  still  living,  and  "the  one  to  whom 
this  duty  is  committed,"  is  to  send  them  "to 
foreign  cities."  In  point  of  fact  the  Shepherd 
of  Hernias  long  held  a  place  for  many  churches 
as  part  of  the  New  Testament  canon.  Yet 
less  than  a  generation  after  Hernias,  the  claim 
to  exercise  the  gift  of  prophecy  in  the  church 
was  looked  upon  as  dangerous  if  not  heretical. 

In  the  nature  of  the  case  it  was  really 
impossible  that  the  original  sense  of  endow- 
ment with  "the  Spirit"  should  survive.  Not 
only  did  the  rapidly  growing  reverence  for 


22     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

the  apostles  and  the  Lord  open  a  chasm 
separating  "the  word  of  wisdom  and  the 
word  of  power"  given  to  that  age,  from 
the  slighter  contemporary  claims  of  miracle 
and  revelation;  the  very  growth  and  wide 
dissemination  of  the  gospel  message  made 
standardization  imperative.  Before  the  mid- 
dle of  the  second  century  Gnostic  schism 
had  swept  nearly  half  the  church  into  the 
vortex  of  speculative  heresy.  Marcion  at 
Rome  (c.  140)  carried  Pauline  anti-legalism 
to  the  extreme  of  an  entire  rejection  of  the 
Old  Testament.  Judaism  and  all  its  works 
and  ways  were  to  be  repudiated.  The  very 
God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  was 
declared  other  than,  and  ignorant  of,  the 
"heavenly  Father"  of  Jesus.  Against  such 
vagaries  there  must  be  some  historic  standard. 
Even  Marcion  himself  looked  to  the  past, 
however  recent,  as  the  source  of  light,  and 
since  some  written  standard  must  be  found, 
it  was  he,  the  heretic,  who  gave  to  Christian- 
ity its  first  canon  of  Christian  writings.  The 
Marcionite  churches  did  away  with  the  public 
reading  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  and 
could  only  put  in  their  place  "Gospel" 
and  "Apostle."  Not  that  Epistles,  Gospels, 
and  even  'Revelations'  were  not  also  in  use 
among  the  orthodox;  but  they  are  not  yet 
referred  to  as  *  Scripture.'  Even  gospels 
are  treated  merely  as  aids  to  the  memory  in 
transmitting  the  teaching  of  the  Lord.  This 
teaching  itself  is  but  the  authoritative  inter- 


INSPIRATION  AND  CANONIZATION    23 

pretation  of  Law  and  Prophets,  and  is  in  turn 
interpreted  by  the  writings  of  the  apostles. 

Marcion's  'Gospel'  consisted  of  our  Luke, 
expurgated  according  to  his  own  ideas.  His 
'Apostles'  contained  the  Epistles  of  Paul 
minus  the  Pastoral  Epistles  and  a  series  of 
passages  cancelled  out  from  the  rest  as 
Jewish  interpolations.  This  was  the  first 
Christian  Bible  distinct  from  'the  Scriptures' 
of  the  synagogue. 

Indirectly  the  growth  of  Gnostic  heresy 
contributed  still  more  to  the  increasing 
authority  of  apostolic  and  quasi-apostolic 
writings.  One  of  its  earliest  and  most  ob- 
noxious forms  was  called  'Doketism,'  from 
its  exaggeration  of  Paulinism  into  a  complete 
repudiation  of  the  historic  Jesus,  whose 
earthly  career  was  stigmatized  as  mere 
'phantasm'  (dokesis).  Doketism  is  known 
to  us  not  only  through  description  by  ortho- 
dox opponents,  but  by  a  few  writings  of  its 
own.  It  is  the  type  of  heresy  antagonized  in 
the  Johannine  Epistles  (c.  100)  and  in  those  of 
Ignatius  (110-117).  Now  Ignatius,  as  we 
have  seen,  relied  mainly  on  church  organiza- 
tion and  discipline.  The  Pastoral  Epistles 
(90-100),  while  they  emphasize  also  "the 
form  of  healthful  words,  even  the  words  of 
our  Lord  Jesus"  take,  on  the  whole,  a  similar 
direction.  But  1st  John,  which  relies  far  less 
than  the  Pastoral  Epistles  or  Ignatius  on  mere 
church  organization,  is  also  driven  back  upon 
the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus  as  the  historic 


24     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

standard.  It  does,  therefore,  make  formal 
appeal  to  the  sacred  tradition  in  both  its 
elements,  but  with  a  difference  characteristic 
of  the  Pauline  spirit.  The  redeeming  life  and 
death  of  Jesus  are  viewed  as  a  manifestation  of 
"the  life,  even  the  eternal  life  (of  the  Logos) 
which  was  with  the  Father  and  was  mani- 
fested unto  us"  (the  historic  body  of  be- 
lievers). Again  Jesus'  one  "new  command- 
ment," the  law  of  love,  is  the  epitome  of  all 
righteousness. 

In  his  doctrine  of  Scripture  as  in  many  other 
respects  the  Johannine  writer  shows  a  breadth 
and  catholicity  of  mind  which  almost  antici- 
pates the  development  of  later  ages.  His 
task  was  in  fact  the  adjustment  of  the 
developed  Pauline  gospel  to  a  type  of  Chris- 
tianity more  nearly  akin  to  synagogue  tradi- 
tion. This  type  had  grown  up  under  the 
name  of  Peter.  On  the  question  of  the 
standard  of  written  authority  'John' 1  leaves 
room  for  the  freedom  of  the  Spirit  so  splen- 
didly set  forth  in  the  teaching  and  example 
of  Jesus  and  Paul,  while  he  resists  the 
erratic  licence  of  "those  that  would  lead  you 
astray."  The  result  is  a  doctrine  of  historic 
authority  in  general,  and  of  that  of  the 
Scriptures  in  particular,  sharply  differentiated 
from  the  Jewish,  and  deserving  in  every  re- 

1  In  using  traditional  names  and  titles  such  as  "Luke," 
"John,"  "Matthew,"  "James,"  no  assumption  is  made  a8 
to  authenticity.  The  designation  is  employed  for  convenience 
irrespective  of  its  critical  accuracy  or  inaccuracy. 


INSPIRATION  AND  CANONIZATION    25 

spect  to  be  treated  as  the  basis  of  the  Chris- 
tian. In  a  great  chapter  of  his  Gospel  (John 
v.),  wherein  Jesus  debates  with  the  scribes 
the  question  of  His  own  authority,  the  dia- 
logue closes  with  a  denunciation  of  them 
because  they  search  the  Scriptures  with  the 
idea  that  in  them  they  have  eternal  life,  that 
is,  they  treat  them  as  a  code  of  precepts,  obedi- 
ence to  which  will  be  thus  rewarded.  On  the 
contrary,  says  Jesus,  the  Scriptures  only  "  bear 
witness"  to  the  life  that  is  present  in  Himself 
as  the  incarnate,  eternal,  Word;  "but  ye  will 
not  come  unto  me  that  ye  might  have  life." 

In  seeking  the  life  behind  the  literature 
as  the  real  revelation,  the  Johannine  writer 
makes  the  essential  distinction  between  Jew- 
ish and  Christian  doctrine.  He  stands  be- 
tween Paul,  whose  peculiar  view  was  based  on 
an  exceptional  personal  experience,  and  the 
modern  investigator,  who  can  but  treat  all 
literary  monuments  and  records  of  religious 
movements  objectively,  as  data  for  the  history 
and  psychology  of  religion.  If  the  student 
be  devoutly  minded  the  Scriptures  will  be 
to  him,  too,  however  conditioned  by  the 
idiosyncrasies  of  temporal  environment  and 
individual  character,  manifestations  of  "the 
life,  even  the  eternal  life,  which  was  with 
the  Father  and  was  manifested  unto  us." 

But  the  Johannine  writer  was  far  deeper 
and  more  'spiritual' l  than  the  trend  of 

1  The  Fourth  Gospel  is  thus  characterized  by  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  meaning  that  it  had  a  deep  symbolic  sense. 


26     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

his  age.  Ignatius'  friend  and  contemporary, 
Polycarp,  "the  father  of  the  Christians"  of 
Asia,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  (110- 
117)  urges  avoidance  of  the  false  teachers  who 
"pervert  the  sayings  of  the  Lord  to  their  own 
lusts,  denying  the  (bodily)  resurrection  and 
judgment."  But  he  has  no  better  remedy 
than  to  "turn  (probably  in  a  somewhat 
mechanical  way)  to  the  tradition  handed 
down  from  the  beginning"  and  to  study  "the 
Epistles  of  Paul."  The  former  process  is  in 
full  application  in  Polycarp's  later  colleague, 
Papias  of  Hierapolis  (c.  145  ?),  who  publishes 
a  little  volume  entitled  Interpretation  of  the 
Sayings  of  the  Lord.  It  is  based  on  carefully 
authenticated  traditions  of  the  'apostles  and 
elders,'  especially  a  certain  contemporary 
"Elder  John"  who  speaks  for  the  Jerusalem 
succession.  According  to  Papias  our  two 
Greek  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Mark  repre- 
sent two  apostolic  sources,  the  one  an  Aramaic 
compilation  of  the  Precepts  of  Jesus  by 
Matthew,  the  other  anecdotes  of  his  "sayings 
and  doings"  collated  from  the  preaching  of 
Peter. 

Grateful  as  we  must  be  for  Papias'  efforts 
to  authenticate  evangelic  tradition,  since  they 
are  corroborated  in  their  main  results  by 
all  other  ancient  tradition  as  well  as  by 
critical  study  of  the  documents,  it  is  notice- 
able how  they  stand  in  line  with  the  tenden- 
cies of  the  age.  Eusebius  (325)  characterizes 
the  reign  of  Trajan  (98-117)  as  a  period  when 


INSPIRATION  AND  CANONIZATION    27 

many  undertook  to  disseminate  in  writing 
"the  divine  Gospels."  One  of  our  own 
evangelists,  whose  work  must  probably  be 
referred  to  the  beginning  of  this  period,  but  is 
not  mentioned  by  'the  Elder,'  alludes  to  the 
same  phenomenon.  The  apostles  were  gone. 
Hence  to  Luke  1  the  question  of  "order"  was 
a  perplexity,  as  the  Elder  observes  that  it  had 
already  been  to  Mark.  Soon  after  Luke  and 
Papias  comes  Basilides  with  his  Exegetics, 
probably  based  on  Luke  (120  ?),  and  Marcion 
(140),  both  engaged  from  their  own  point  of 
view  with  the  current  questions  of  Jesus' 
teaching  and  ministry. 

Thus,  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, the  elements  necessary  to  the  formation 
of  a  New  Testament  canon  were  all  at  hand. 
They  included  the  tradition  of  the  teaching 
and  work  of  Jesus,  the  letters  of  apostles  and 
church  leaders  revered  as  given  by  authority 
of  the  Spirit  and  the  visions  and  revelations 
of  *  prophets.'  Not  only  the  elements  were 
present,  the  irresistible  pressure  of  the  times 
was  certain  to  force  them  into  crystallization. 
The  wonder  is  not  that  the  canon  should 
have  been  formed,  but  that  it  should  have 
been  delayed  so  long. 

For  there  were  also  resistant  factors. 
Phrygia,  the  scene  of  Paul's  first  great 
missionary  conquests,  the  immemorial  home 
of  religious  enthusiasm,  became  the  seat, 
about  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  of  a 

1  See  note  above,  p.  24. 


28     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

movement  of  protest  against  the  church  policy 
of  consolidation  and  standardization.  Mon- 
tanus  arose  to  maintain  the  persistence  in 
the  church  of  the  gift  of  prophecy,  tracing 
the  succession  in  both  the  male  and  female 
line  back  to  Silas  the  companion  of  Paul 
and  the  prophesying  daughters  of  Philip 
the  Evangelist.  The  'Phrygians,'  as  they 
were  called,  naturally  made  much  of  the 
writings  current  in  Asia  Minor,  especially  the 
book  of  'prophecy'  attributed  to  'John.' 
Theoretically  indeed  the  church  was  unwilling 
to  acknowledge  the  disappearance  of  this  gift. 
To  Hernias  (130-140)  and  the  Teaching  of  the 
Twelve  (120-130)  it  is  still  a  "sin  against  the 
Spirit"  to  interrupt  or  oppose  a  prophet 
during  his  ecstatic  utterance.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Teaching  reiterates  the  apostolic 
warnings  to  "try  the  spirits,"  with  prohibi- 
tions of  specific  excesses  of  the  order.  More- 
over by  the  time  of  Montanus  and  the 
'Phrygians'  theoretical  recognition  of  reve- 
lation through  the  prophets  was  rapidly  giving 
way  before  the  practical  dangers  inseparable 
from  'revelations'  of  this  enthusiastic  char- 
acter, of  which  any  member  of  the  church, 
man  or  woman,  ignorant  or  learned,  lay  or 
cleric,  might  be  the  recipient.  The  strict 
regulative  control  imposed  by  both  Paul 
and  John  *  upon  this  type  of  spiritual  gift  (1st 
Thess.  v.  20/.;  1st  Cor.  xii.  3;  xv.  29/.  32;  cf. 
1st  John  iv.  1)  was  found  to  be  doubly  neces- 

1  See  note  above,  p.  24. 


INSPIRATION  AND  CANONIZATION    29 

sary  in  face  of  the  disintegrating  tendencies 
of  the  post-apostolic  age,  and  after  long 
debate  and  much  protest  the  movement  of 
Montanus  was  at  last  decreed  heretical  at 
Rome,  though  Irenaeus  (186)  interceded  for  it, 
and  Tertullian  (210)  became  a  convert. 

The  history  of  this  movement  in  the  forma- 
tive period  of  the  New  Testament  canon 
explains  why  the  "revelations  of  the  proph- 
ets" obtained  but  scant  recognition  as  com- 
pared with  the  "word  of  the  Lord"  and  the 
"commandment  of  the  apostles."  Last  of 
the  three,  in  order  of  rank  (1st  Cor.  xii.  28; 
Eph.  iv.  11),  last  also  to  be  codified  in  written 
form,  we  need  not  be  surprised  that  our  pres- 
ent New  Testament  retains  but  a  single  one  of 
the  once  current  books  of  'prophecy.'  For 
a  time  the  Shepherd  of  Hernias  and  the 
Apocalypse  of  Peter  rivalled  the  claims  to 
canonicity  of  our  own  Revelation  of  John, 
but  were  soon  dropped.  Our  own  Apocalypse 
has  suffered  more  opposition  than  any  other 
New  Testament  writing,  being  still  excluded 
from  the  canon  in  some  branches  of  the 
church.  Its  precarious  place  at  the  end  of  the 
canon  which  we  moderns  have  inherited  from 
Athanasius  (ob.  373)  was  due,  in  fact  far 
less  to  its  author's  vigorous  assertions  of 
authority  as  an  inspired  "prophet"  (L  1-3; 
xxii.  6-9,  18  /.)  than  to  the  claims  to  aposto- 
licity  put  forward  in  the  preface  and  appen- 
dix. For  until  the  third  century  no  one 
dreamed  of  understanding  the  "John"  of 


30     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Rev.  i.  4,  9  and  xxii.  8  otherwise  than  as  the 
Apostle.  Eusebius  accordingly  (325)  is  uncer- 
tain only  as  to  whether  the  book  should  be 
classed  in  his  first  group  of  "accepted" 
writings,  along  with  the  Gospels  and  Pauline 
Epistles,  or  in  the  third  as  "spurious."  If 
written  by  "some  other  John  than  the  Apos- 
tle" he  would  not  even  honour  it  with  a  place 
in  his  second  group  of  "  disputed  "  books,  along 
with  Hebrews,  James,  Jude,  and  2nd  Peter. 

Thus  at  the  end  of  the  second  century,  while 
there  was  still  much  dispute  (destined  indeed 
to  continue  for  centuries)  as  to  the  limits  of 
the  New  Testament  canon,  there  had  in  fact 
come  to  be  a  real  canonical  New  Testament 
set  over  against  the  Old,  as  of  equal,  or  even 
greater  authority.  The  "word  of  the  Lord," 
the  "commandment  of  the  apostles,"  and  at 
last  even  the  "revelations  of  the  prophets," 
had  successively  ceased  as  living  realities,  and 
become  crystallized  into  written  form.  They 
had  been  codified  and  canonized.  The  church 
had  travelled  the  beaten  track  of  the  syna- 
gogue, and  all  the  more  rapidly  from  the 
example  set  before  it.  None  of  the  early 
canons  (i.  e.  lists  of  writings  permitted  to  be 
read  in  the  churches)  coincides  exactly,  it  is 
true,  with  the  New  Testament  current  among 
ourselves.  The  list  of  Athanasius  is  the  first 
to  give  just  our  books.  The  Roman  list  of  the 
Muratorian  fragment  (185-200)  omits  He- 
brews, James  and  2nd  Peter,  and  gives  at 
least  a  partial  sanction  to  the  Apocalypse  of 


INSPIRATION  AND  CANONIZATION    31 

Peter.  The  lists  of  Origen  (ob.  251)  and 
Eusebius  (325)  vary  as  respects  both  inclusion 
and  exclusion.  All  early  authorities  express  a 
doubtful  judgment  regarding  the  outer  fringe 
of  minor  writings  such  as  James,  Jude,  2nd 
Peter,  2nd  and  3rd  John.  Even  those  of 
larger  content,  such  as  Hebrews  and  Revela- 
tion, if  their  apostolicity  was  questioned, 
remained  subjects  of  dispute.  But  already 
by  A.D.  200  the  time  had  long  since  passed 
when  any  of  the  thirteen  epistles  bearing  the 
name  of  Paul  could  be  deemed  open  to  ques- 
tion. Marcion's  exclusion  of  the  three  Pas- 
torals had  been  forgotten.  Dispute  of  the 
four-gospel  canon  could  still  be  tolerated;  but 
not  for  long.  Irenseus  (186)  has  no  patience 
with  "those  wretched  men"  who  cannot  see 
that  in  the  nature  of  the  case  there  should  be 
neither  more  nor  less  than  this  number.  But 
he  explicitly  refers  to  those  who  disputed 
"that  aspect  of  the  gospel  which  is  called 
John's."  There  were,  in  fact,  opponents  of 
Montanism  at  Rome,  who  under  the  lead  of 
Gaius  had  denied  the  authenticity  of  all  the 
writings  attributed  to  John,  including  the 
Gospel  itself.  But  even  those  of  the  orthodox 
who  were  willing  enough  to  reject  Revelation, 
with  its  now  unfashionable  eschatology, 
agreed  that  Gains'  attack  upon  the  fourth 
Gospel  was  too  radical.  The  small  body  who 
continued  for  a  few  generations  to  resist  the 
inclusion  of  any  of  the  Johannine  writings  in 
the  canon  remained  without  influence,  and 


32     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

were  ultimately  forgotten.  The  *  catholic ' ] 
church  had  repudiated  heresy,  standardized 
the  faith,  and  confined  its  recognized  historic 
expression  to  a  'canon'  of  New  Testament 
Scripture. 

1  Catholic  is  here  used  in  its  etymological  sense  of  "gen- 
eral" or  universal.  We  shall  have  occasion  to  apply  the 
term  in  a  more  limited  sense  hereafter. 


CHAPTER    II 

THE  REACTION   TO   CRITICISM 

THE  consolidated  *  catholic'  church  of 
the  third  century  might  seem,  so  far  as  its 
doctrine  of  Scripture  was  concerned,  to  have 
retraced  its  steps  to  a  standpoint  correspond- 
ing completely  to  that  of  the  synagogue. 
Only,  the  paradox  still  held  that  the  very 
writings  canonized  were  those  supremely 
adapted  to  evoke  a  spirit  of  resistance  to 
the  despotism  of  either  priest  or  scribe. 
The  Protestant  Reformation  was  a  revolt 
against  the  former,  and  it  is  noticeable  how 
large  a  part  was  played  by  the  New  Testa- 
ment doctrine  of  the  'Spirit'  in  this  struggle 
of  spiritual  democracy  against  hierocratic 
tyranny.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 
became  Luther's  Palladium. 

But  the  post-Reformation  dogmatists  took 
fright  at  their  own  freedom.  The  prediction 
of  the  Romanists  that  repudiation  of  tradi- 
tional authority  in  its  cclesiastical  embodi- 
ment would  result  in  internecine  schism  and 
conflict  seemed  on  the  point  of  being  realized. 
The  theological  system-makers,  like  their 
predecessors  of  the  post-apostolic  age,  could 

33 


34     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

see  no  way  out  but  to  throw  all  their  weight 
on  a  past  inspiration  assumed  to  be  without 
error.  The  canonical  books  were  declared  to 
furnish  an  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

It  was  in  the  sincere  desire  to  meet  the 
requirements  of  this  theory  that  the  science 
of  criticism  grew  up.  In  the  earlier  days 
it  did  not  venture  for  the  most  part  beyond 
what  is  known  as  *  textual'  criticism.  For 
a  doctrine  of  inerrancy  is  manifestly  un- 
serviceable until  errors  of  transmission  have 
been  eliminated.  Textual  criticism  set  itself 
to  this  task,  asking  the  question :  As  between 
the  various  readings  found  in  different  New 
Testament  manuscripts,  which  is  original  ? 
Unfortunately,  to  meet  the  logical  require- 
ment the  critic,  if  not  backed  like  those  of 
Rome  by  a  papal  guarantee,  must  himself 
be  infallible.  The  inevitable  result  of  this 
attempt,  begun  in  the  sincerest  spirit  of 
apologetics,  was  to  prove  that  an  infallible 
text  is  hopelessly  unattainable.  Textual 
criticism  is  indispensable;  but  as  the  servant 
of  apologetics  it  is  foredoomed  to  failure. 

The  variation  of  the  manuscripts  was  not 
the  only  obstacle  to  biblical  infallibility.  To 
say  nothing  of  differences  of  interpretation 
there  was  the  question  of  the  canon.  Either 
the  decision  of  the  'catholic'  church  must 
be  accepted  as  infallible,  or  scholarship  must 
undertake  a  'criticism  of  the  canon'  to 
defend  the  current  list  of  "inspired"  books 
A  'higher'  criticism  became  necessary  if 


THE  REACTION  TO  CRITICISM     35 

only  to  vindicate  the  church's  choice  on 
historical  grounds.  Roman  Catholics  like 
Simon,  whose  Critical  History  of  the  Biblical 
books  appeared  in  1689-1695,  could  reopen 
the  question  with  impunity.  Those  who 
based  their  authority  on  the  infallibility  of 
Scripture  alone  could  not  meet  the  challenge 
otherwise  than  as  Michaelis  did  in  his  Intro- 
duction to  the  Divine  Writings  of  the  New 
Testament  (1750-1780).  Michselis  undertook 
a  historical  inquiry  into  the  circumstances  of 
origin  of  each  of  the  canonical  books,  with  the 
object  of  proving  each  to  be  in  reality  what 
tradition  declared.  The  twenty-seven  com- 
monly accepted  were  supposed  to  have  been 
either  written  by  apostles,  or  at  least  so 
superintended  and  guaranteed  by  them,  as 
to  cover  all  with  the  aegis  of  an  infallibility 
not  conceded  to  the  post-apostolic  age. 
Scholarship  in  the  harness  of  apologetics 
again  found  its  task  impracticable.  Michse- 
lis  himself  confessed  it  "difficult"  to  prove 
authenticity  in  cases  like  that  of  the  Epistle 
of  Jude.  Conceive  the  task  as  the  scientific 
vindication  of  a  verdict  rendered  centuries 
before  on  unknown  grounds,  but  now  de- 
prived of  official  authority,  and  it  becomes 
inevitably  hopeless.  Can  it  be  expected  that 
doctors  will  not  disagree  on  the  authenticity 
or  pseudonymity  of  2nd  Peter,  who  always 
have  disagreed  on  this  and  similar  questions, 
and  have  just  admitted  failure  to  agree  in  the 
matter  of  text? 


36     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

For  half  a  century  criticism  seemed  lost 
in  the  slough  of  mere  controversy  over  the 
(assumed)  infallible  text,  and  the  (assumed) 
infallible  canon.  Apologists  fought  merely  on 
the  defensive,  endeavouring  to  prove  that 
men  whose  fallibility  was  admitted  had 
nevertheless  pronounced  an  infallible  verdict 
on  the  most  difficult  subjects  of  literary  and 
historical  inquiry.  Critics  had  an  easy  task 
in  showing  that  the  church's  theory  of 
inspiration  and  canonicity  was  incorrect;  but 
made  no  progress  toward  a  constructive 
explanation  of  the  religious,  or  even  the 
historical,  significance  of  the  literature.  Real 
progress  was  made  only  when  criticism  left 
off  the  attempt  either  to  establish  or  dis- 
establish a  'received'  text,  or  an  'author- 
ized' canon,  and  became  simply  an  instru- 
ment in  the  hand  of  the  historian,  as  he  seeks 
to  trace  to  their  origins  the  ideas  the  church 
enshrined  in  her  literature  because  she  found 
them  effective  in  her  growth. 

For  the  great  awakening  in  which  New 
Testament  criticism  'found  itself  as  a 
genuine  and  indispensable  branch  of  the 
history  of  religion,  we  are  largely  indebted 
to  the  eminent  church  historian,  Ferdinand 
Christian  Baur  (ob.  1860).  Baur  gathered 
up  the  fragmentary  results  of  a  generation 
of  mere  negation,  a  war  of  independence 
against  the  tyranny  of  dogmatic  tradition, 
and  sought  to  place  the  New  Testament 
writings  in  their  true  setting  of  primitive 


THE  REACTION  TO  CRITICISM     37 

church  history.     His  particular  views  have 
been  superseded.    Subsequent  study  has  dis- 

E  roved  many  of  his  inferences,  and  brought 
'om  friend  and  foe  far-reaching  modifica- 
tions to  his  general  theory.  But,  consciously 
or  not,  Baur,  in  making  criticism  the  hand- 
maid of  history,  was  working  in  the  interest 
of  that  constructive,  Christian,  doctrine  of 
inspired  Scripture  which  an  ancient  and 
nameless  teacher  of  the  church  had  described 
as  "witness"  to  the  Life,  "even  the  eternal 
life,  which  was  with  the  Father,"  and  is  in 
man,  and  has  been  manifested  in  the  origin 
and  historical  development  of  our  religion. 

The  Reformation  had  been  a  revolt  against 
the  despotism  of  the  priest;  this  was  a  revolt 
against  the  despotism  of  the  scribe. 

Baur  gave  scant — too  scant — consideration 
to  early  tradition,  making  his  results  unduly 
negative.  None  of  the  New  Testament  books 
are  dated;  few  besides  the  Pauline  Epistles 
embody  even  an  author's  name;  and  these 
few,  1st  and  2nd  Peter,  James,  Jude  and 
Revelation,  were  (1st  Peter  alone  excepted) 
just  those  which  even  the  canon-makers 
had  classified  as  doubtful,  or  spurious.  Not 
even  a  Calvin  would  support  the  authenticity 
of  2nd  Peter,  a  Luther  had  denied  the  value 
of  James  and  Revelation.  It  had  been  an 
easy  task  for  'criticism  of  the  canon'  to 
show  that  those  who  determined  its  content 
had  not  been  actuated  by  considerations  of 
pure  science.  Those  books  secured  admission 


38     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

which  were  most  widely  current  as  ancient 
and  trustworthy,  and  whose  orthodoxy  met 
the  standards  of  the  time.  Those  were 
disputed,  or  rejected,  which  were  less  widely 
current,  or  unorthodox,  or  could  establish 
no  direct  relation  to  an  apostle.  It  was 
proper  for  the  critic,  once  his  aim  had  become 
not  apologetic  but  historical,  to  drop  once 
for  all  the  question  whether  the  canon- 
makers'  selection — made  not  for  scientific, 
but  for  religious  purposes — is  good,  bad  or 
indifferent.  The  time  had  come  for  him  to 
apply  the  available  evidence  to  his  own 
scientific  question:  What  relation  do  these 
several  writings  bear  to  the  development  of 
Christianity?  It  remained  to  be  seen  whether 
he  could  offer  constructive  evidence  more 
convincing  than  tradition. 

The  latest  date  to  which  an  undated,  or 
disputed,  writing  can  be  assigned  is  that  when 
the  marks  of  its  employment  by  others,  or 
influence  upon  them,  become  undeniable. 
This  is  termed  the  'external'  evidence. 
The  earliest  date,  conversely,  is  that  to  which 
we  are  brought  down  by  references  in  the 
book  itself  to  antecedent  and  current  events, 
and  writings,  or  by  undeniable  marks  of  their 
influence.  This  is  termed  the  '  internal ' 
evidence.  Counting  tradition  as  part  of  the 
external  evidence,  modern  scientific  criticism 
is  able  to  fix  within  a  few  decades  the  origin 
of  all  the  New  Testament  writings,  without 
incurring  opposition  even  from  the  apologist. 


THE  REACTION  TO  CRITICISM     39 

No  scholar  now  dreams  of  adopting  any  other 
method  of  proof,  whatever  his  doctrinal 
proclivities.  The  overwhelming  majority  are 
agreed  that  the  period  covered,  from  the 
earliest  Pauline  Epistles  to  the  latest  brief 
fulminations  against  Gnostic  Doketism  and 
denial  of  'resurrection  and  judgment,'  is 
included  in  the  century  from  A.D.  50  to  150. 

Baur's  conception  of  the  course  of  events 
in  this  momentous  century  has  been  described 
as  a  theory  of  historical  progress  by  fusion 
of  opposites  in  a  higher  unity.  The  Hegelian 
scheme  of  thesis,  antithesis  and  synthesis 
had  in  fact  some  justification  in  the  recognized 
phenomena  of  the  development  of  Christian- 
ity. It  had  sprung  from  Judaism,  overcoming 
the  particularism  of  that  still  nationalistic 
faith  by  the  sense  of  its  mission  to  the  world 
at  large.  The  conflict  acknowledged  in  all  the 
sources  and  most  vividly  reflected  in  the 
great  Epistles  of  Paul  to  the  Galatians, 
Corinthians  and  Romans,  a  conflict  between 
those  who  conceived  Christianity  as  a  univer- 
sal religion,  and  those  who  looked  upon  it  as 
only  a  reformed,  spiritualized  and  perfected 
Judaism,  was  the  characteristic  phenomenon 
of  the  first  or  apostolic  age.  It  was  the 
struggle  of  the  infant  faith  against  its 
swaddling  bands.  The  critical  historian  is 
compelled  to  estimate  all  later,  anonymous, 
accounts  of  this  development  in  the  light 
of  the  confessedly  earlier,  and  indubitably 
authentic  records,  the  four  great  Epistles  of 


40     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Paul;  for  these  simply  reflect  the  actual 
conditions,  and  are  not  affected  by  the  later 
disposition  to  idealize  the  story.  Thesis  and 
antithesis  were  therefore  really  in  evidence 
at  the  beginnings. 

Equal  unanimity  prevailed  as  to  the  close 
of  the  period  in  question.  In  A.D.  150  to 
200,  Christianity  was  solidifying  into  the 
'catholic'  church,  rejecting  extremes  of  doc- 
trine on  both  sides,  formulating  its  'rule 
of  faith,'  determining  its  canon,  centralizing 
administrative  control.  It  had  thrown  off  as 
heretical  upon  the  extreme  left  Marcion  and 
the  Gnostics,  who  either  repudiated  the 
Jewish  scriptures  altogether,  or  interpreted 
them  with  more  than  Pauline  freedom.  On 
the  extreme  right  it  had  renounced  the 
unprogressive  Ebionites  of  Palestine,  still 
unreconciled  to  Paul,  and  insistent  on  sub- 
mission to  the  Law  for  Jew  and  Gentile,  as 
the  condition  of  a  'share  in  the  world  to 
come.'  What  could  be  imagined  as  to  the 
course  of  events  in  the  intervening  century 
of  obscurity?  Must  it  not  have  witnessed 
a  progressive  divergence  of  the  extremes  of 
Paulinists  and  Judaizers,  coincidently  with 
a  rapprochement  of  the!  moderates  from  the 
side  of  Peter  and  that  of  Paul  respectively? 
Baur's  outline  seemed  thus  to  describe  ade- 
quately the  main  course  of  events.  He  relied 
upon  internal  evidence  to  determine  the 
dates  of  the  disputed  writings  and  their 
relation  to  it.  But  'criticism  of  the  canon' 


THE  REACTION  TO  CRITICISM     41 

in  Baur's  own,  and  in  the  preceding  genera- 
tion, had  come  to  include  among  the  writings 
of  doubtful  date  and  authenticity  not  only 
those  disputed  in  antiquity,  and  the  anony- 
mous narrative  books,  but  also  1st  Peter  and 
the  minor  Epistles  of  Paul.  Nothing  strictly 
apostolic  was  left  save  the  four  great  Epistles 
of  Paul. 

The  theory  of  Baur  and  the  Tubingen 
school  (for  so  his  followers  came  to  be 
designated)  was  broadly  conceived  and  ably 
advocated.  In  two  vital  respects  it  has  had 
permanent  influence.  (1)  Criticism,  as  al- 
ready noted,  has  ceased  to  be  mere  debate 
about  text  and  canon,  and  concerns  itself  to- 
day primarily  with  the  history  of  Christian 
ideas  as  embodied  in  its  primitive  literature. 
Its  problem  is  to  relate  the  New  Testament 
writings,  together  with  all  other  cognate 
material,  to  the  history  of  the  developing 
religion  from  its  earliest  traceable  form  in  the 
greater  Pauline  Epistles  to  where  it  emerges 
into  the  full  light  of  day  toward  the  close  of 
the  second  century.  (2)  Again,  Baur's  out- 
line of  the  process  through  which  the  nascent 
faith  attained  to  full  self-consciousness  as 
a  world-religion  required  correction  rather 
than  disproof.  It  was  a  grievous  mistake 
to  identify  Peter,  James,  and  John  with 
those  whom  Paul  bitterly  denounces  as 
Judaizing  "false  brethren,"  "superextra  apos- 
tles," "ministers  of  Satan."  It  was  a  per- 
version of  internal  evidence  to  reject  as 


42     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

post-Pauline  the  Epistles  of  the  later  period 
such  as  Philippians  and  Colossians,  on  the 
ground  that  Paul  himself  did  not  live  to 
participate  in  the  second  crisis,  the  defence 
of  his  doctrine  against  perversion  on  the 
side  of  mystical,  Hellenistic  theosophy.  The 
great  Epistles  written  under  the  name  of 
Paul  from  the  period  of  his  captivity  are 
innocent  of  reference  to  the  developed  Gnos- 
tic systems  of  the  second  century.  They  an- 
tagonize only  an  incipient  tendency  in  this 
direction. 

But  while  the  transition  of  A.D.  50-150 
was  both  deeper  and  more  complex  than 
Baur  conceived,  the  transfer  of  the  gospel 
during  that  century  from  Jewish  to  Gentile 
soil  is  really  the  great  outstanding  fact, 
against  which  as  a  background  the  literature 
must  be  read;  and  the  initial  stage  of  the 
process  is  marked  by  the  controversy  of 
Paul  with  the  Galilean  apostles.  What  we 
must  call,  in  distinction  from  Paulinism, 
'apostolic'  Christianity  is  well  represented 
in  the  Book  of  Acts.  Paul's  writings  show 
that  .he  felt  himself  and  his  churches  to 
represent  an  independent  type  of  Christian- 
ity in  all  respects  equal  to  the  'apostolic,'  the 
problem  being  unification  of  the  two.  Now 
it  is  axiomatic  that  the  investigator  must 
proceed  from  the  relatively  known  and 
determinable  to  the  unknown  and  disputable. 
Accordingly  it  is  in  reality  from  the  Epistolary 
literature  of  the  church,  in  particular  the 


THE  REACTION  TO  CRITICISM     43 

greater  Pauline  Epistles,  that  he  must  take 
his  start.  As  a  source  for  our  understanding 
of  the  development  of  the  life  of  the  church 
the  Literature  of  the  Apostle,  directly  partici- 
pant in  the  conflicts  and  issues  of  the  times, 
even  if  in  its  later  elements  of  doubtful  or 
pseudonymous  authorship,  takes  precedence 
as  a  whole  over  the  Literature  of  the  Cate- 
chist,  with  its  later  and  more  or  less  idealized 
narration,  exemplified  in  the  Book  of  Acts. 

Modern  criticism  acknowledges,  then,  its 
indebtedness  to  the  Tubingen  school  for  a 
clearer  definition  of  both  its  task  and  method, 
by  concentrating  attention  upon  the  contrast 
between  the  Petrine  and  the  Pauline  con- 
ception of  'the  gospel.'  Still  it  must  be 
admitted  that  most  of  the  inferences  first 
drawn  have  since  been  overthrown.  In 
their  chronological  scheme  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment writings  the  Tubingen  critics  under- 
estimated the  force  of  the  external  evidences 
(including  early  tradition)  and  misinterpreted 
the  internal.  New  discovery  and  more  care- 
ful study  of  literary  relations  have  inverted 
Baur's  views  as  to  dates  of  the  Johannine 
writings.  Four  of  these  (the  Gospel  and 
three  Epistles)  are  anonymous.  Baur's  date 
for  these  has  been  forced  back  by  no  less  than 
half  a  century.  The  fifth  (Revelation)  bears 
the  name  of  John,  but  was  hotly  disputed  as 
pseudonymous  in  the  second  century,  and 
even  by  its  supporters  was  dated  so  late  as 
"the  end  of  the  reign  of  Domitian"  (95). 


44     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

The  Tubingen  school  placed  Revelation  thirty 
years  earlier,  and  attributed  it  to  the  Apostle. 
Modern  criticism  emphatically  reverts  to  the 
ancient  date,  and  regards  the  book  as  pseudo- 
nymous, or  as  written  by  "some  other  John." 

Again  the  relative  dates  of  the  Synoptic 
writings  (Matthew,  Mark,  Luke-Acts)  were 
inverted  by  the  Tubingen  critics,  primarily 
through  wrong  application  of  their  theory 
of  doctrinal  development;  secondarily,  and 
as  a  consequence,  through  misinterpretation 
of  the  intricate  literary  relationships.  Present- 
day  criticism  considers  it  established  that 
Mark  is  the  oldest  of  the  three,  taken  up  by 
each  of  the  other  two.  There  is  almost 
equal  unanimity  in  regarding  the  discourse 
material  common  to  Matthew  and  Luke  and 
variously  combined  by  each  with  Mark,  as 
independently  drawn  by  them  from  the  book 
of  the  "Precepts  of  the  Lord,"  reported 
by  Papias  to  have  been  compiled  by  Matthew 
"in  the  Hebrew  (i.  e.  Aramaic)  tongue." 
Tubingen  gospel  criticism  is  thus  almost 
entirely  set  aside,  in  favour  of  the  so-called 
'Two-document'  theory. 

So  with  the  Pauline  Epistles  of  the  second 
period.  Doubt  still  clings  to  Ephesians.  It 
had  been  treated  by  some  as  pseudo-Pauline 
even  before  the  time  of  Baur;  but  Baur's 
own  followers  soon  receded  from  his  extreme 
application  of  his  theory  to  the  internal 
evidence  of  Philippians,  Colossians  and  Phile- 
mon. It  became  evident  that  Paul's  "  gospel " 


THE  REACTION  TO  CRITICISM     45 

included  something  more  than  the  mere 
antithesis  of  Law  and  Grace.  He  had  other 
opponents  than  the  Judaizers,  and  had  to 
defend  his  doctrine  against  perversion  by 
Grecizing  mystics  as  well  as  against  opposi- 
tion by  Pharisaic  legalists. 

Two  generations  of  research  and  contro- 
versy have  greatly  advanced  the  cause  of  con- 
structive criticism.  Hand  in  hand  with  a 
more  accurate  dating  of  the  literature,  secured 
through  more  impartial  judgment  of  both 
the  external  and  internal  evidence,  there  has 
gone  a  reconstruction  of  our  conception  of 
the  course  of  events.  The  tendencies  in  the 
early  church  were  not  two  only,  but  four; 
corresponding,  perhaps,  to  those  rebuked  by 
Paul  at  Corinth,  which  called  themselves  by 
the  names  respectively  of  Peter,  of  Paul,  of 
Apollos  and  of  Christ.  It  seems  probable 
from  the  bitterness  with  which  in  2nd  Cor. 
x.  7  Paul  denounces  the  man  who  says, 
"I  am  of  Christ,"  that  this  party-cry  was 
employed  in  the  sense  of  following  the  exam- 
ple of  Jesus  as  respects  obedience  to  the  Law 
(for  even  Paul  acknowledged  that  Christ 
had  been  "made  a  minister  of  the  circumci- 
sion for  the  truth  of  God").  If  so,  the  Corin- 
thian "Christ-party"  may  be  identified  with 
those  "ministers  of  the  circumcision"  who 
denied  both  the  apostleship  and  the  gospel  of 
Paul.  At  all  events  those  "of  Cephas"  were 
relatively  harmless.  They  may  be  identified 
with  the  so-called  'weak'  or  Romans,  for 


46     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

whose  scruples  on  the  score  of  'pollutions 
of  idols'  Paul  demands  such  consideration 
both  at  Corinth  and  at  Rome.  His  own 
adherents  both  at  Corinth  (those  'of  Paul') 
and  at  Rome  (the  'strong')  are  to  follow  his 
example  not  merely  in  recognizing  that: 
"No  idol  is  anything  in  the  world,"  that 
"there  is  nothing  unclean  of  itself,"  and  that 
"all  things  are  lawful."  It  is  to  be  followed 
also  in  recognizing  the  limitations  of  this 
liberty.  Limits  are  imposed  among  other 
things  by  the  scruples  of  others,  so  that 
Paul  himself  becomes  "as  under  the  Law" 
when  among  Jews,  though  "as  without  the 
Law"  among  the  Gentiles.  The  "weak" 
are  to  be  resisted  only  when  the  admission 
of  themselves  or  their  claims  would  lead 
to  "doubtful  disputations,"  or  to  a  rebuild- 
ing of  walls  of  separation  that  had  been  torn 
down  through  faith  in  Christ.  Galatians 
sounds  the  battle-dry  of  endangered  liberty. 
Corinthians  (and  Romans  in  still  higher 
degree)  shows  the  magnanimity  of  the  victor. 
Whether  it  be  possible  to  identify  those 
"of  Apollos"  at  Corinth  with  the  beginnings 
of  that  Hellenistic  perversion  of  the  Pauline 
gospel  into  a  mystical  theosophy  which  after- 
wards passed  into  Gnosticism  may  be  left 
an  open  question.  At  least  we  have  come  to 
see  that  the  conditions  of  the  church's 
growth  were  far  more  complex  than  Baur 
imagined.  In  particular  it  is  necessary  to 
distinguish  four  different  attitudes  on  the 


THE  REACTION  TO  CRITICISM     47 

single  question  of  the  obligation  of  the  Law. 
There  were  (1)  Judaizers  who  insisted  on 
complete  submission  to  the  Law  as  the 
condition  of  salvation,  for  both  Jews  and 
Gentiles;  (2)  imitators  of  Cephas,  who  con- 
sidered believers  of  Jewish  birth  to  be  "under 
the  Law,"  but  asked  of  Gentiles  only  such 
consideration  for  it  as  the  special  conditions 
seemed  to  require;  (3)  Paulinists,  who  held 
that  neither  Jews  nor  Gentiles  are  under  the 
law,  yet  felt  that  consideration  should  be 
shown  for  the  scrupulous  when  asked  not 
as  of  right,  but  as  of  charity;  (4)  radicals, 
who  recognized  no  limits  to  their  freedom 
save  the  one  new  commandment. 

But  while  conflict  first  broke  out  over  the 
mere  concrete  question  of  Gentile  liberty,  the 
real  distinction  of  Paul's  gospel  from  that 
of  the  older  apostles  was  far  deeper.  The 
question  as  Tubingen  critics  conceived  it 
concerned  primarily  the  extent  of  the  gospel 
message, — to  how  large  a  circle  was  it 
offered?  Modern  criticism  has  come  to  see 
that  the  difference  was  in  higher  degree  a 
difference  of  quality.  Paul's  whole  message 
of  redemption  through  the  cross  and  resurrec- 
tion started  from  other  premisses  than  those 
of  the  Galilean  apostles,  and  was  conceived 
in  other  terms.  For  this  reason  it  leads  over 
to  a  new  Christology.  In  short,  the  transition 
of  Christianity  from  its  Jewish  to  its  Gentile 
form  is  not  a  mere  enlargement  of  its  field  by 
the  abolition  of  particularistic  barriers.  The 


48     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

background  we  must  study,  for  the  under- 
standing of  it  is  not  so  much  mere  contempo- 
rary history  as  the  contemporary  history  of 
religion.  The  development  from  the  Petrine 
gospel  broadly  characteristic  of  the  Synoptic 
writings,  through  the  Pauline  Epistles  to  that 
of  the  Johannine  writings,  is  a  transition  from 
Hebrew  to  Hellenistic  conceptions  of  what 
redemption  is,  and  how  it  is  effected.  Modern 
criticism  expresses  the  contrast  in  its  dis- 
tinction of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  from  the  gospel 
about  Jesus. 

In  the  case  of  both  Paul  and  his  pred- 
ecessors in  the  faith  there  is  a  common 
starting-point.  It  was  the  doctrine  that 
God  had  raised  Jesus  from  the  dead  and 
exalted  Him  as  Christ  and  Lord  to  the  throne 
of  glory.  Its  proofs  were  the  ecstatic  phe- 
nomena of  the  Spirit,  those  strange  manifesta- 
tions of  'prophecy,'  *  tongues,'  and  the  like  in 
the  Christian  assembly.  The  inference  from 
this  resurrection  faith  for  an  apostle  of  the 
Galilean  group  was  that  he  must  "teach  all 
men  everywhere  to  observe  all  things  whatso- 
ever Jesus  had  commanded."  Jesus  had  been 
raised  up  in  Israel  as  the  Prophet  like  unto 
Moses;  His  apostle  must  repeat  the  remem- 
bered word  of  commandment  and  the  word 
of  promise.  He  will  have  an  authority 
derived  from  the  manifestations  of  signs  and 
wonders.  These  had  accompanied  Jesus' 
own  career,  and  now,  by  grace  of  His  en- 
dowment of  His  disciples  with  the  Spirit, 


THE  REACTION  TO  CRITICISM     49 

they  will  be  repeated  by  their  hands.  The 
'apostolic'  gospel  is  thus  primarily  historical. 
The  Pauline  gospel  centres  at  the  other  pole  of 
religious  conviction.  It  is  primarily  psycholo- 
gical. For  Paul  the  immediate  effect  of  the 
revelation  of  God's  Son  "in"  him  is  an  irre- 
sistible impulse  to  relate  his  own  soul's  expe- 
rience. The  gospel  he  preaches  is  not  so  much 
what  Jesus  did  or  said  while  on  earth,  as  what 
God  has  done,  and  is  still  doing,  through  the 
"life-giving  Spirit"  which  emanates  from 
the  risen  Lord.  Signs  and  wonders  are  tokens 
of  the  Spirit,  but  are  of  less  value,  and  must 
vanish  before  the  "abiding"  ethical  gifts. 
Both  the  Pauline  and  the  Pe trine  gospel 
start  from  the  common  confession  of  "Jesus 
as  Lord";  but  the  Christology  of  the  Synop- 
tic literature  is  an  Apotheosis  doctrine,  falling 
back  on  the  historical  Jesus.  That  of  the 
Epistles  is  a  doctrine  of  Incarnation,  appeal- 
ing to  the  eternal  manifestation  of  God  in 
man.  For  the  former,  Jesus  was  "a  prophet 
mighty  in  deed  and  word,"  raised  up  by  God 
in  accordance  with  the  promise  of  Deut. 
xviii.  18,  to  turn  Israel  to  repentance.  Hav- 
ing fulfilled  this  mission  in  rejection  and 
martyrdom  Jesus  had  been  exalted  to  God's 
"right  hand"  and  "made  both  Lord  and 
Christ."  He  there  awaits  the  subjection  of  all 
His  enemies.  In  the  Pauline  gospel  the  story 
of  Jesus  is  a  drama  of  the  supernal  regions, 
wherein  His  earthly  career  as  prophet,  leader, 
teacher,  sinks  to  the  level  of  the  merest 


50     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

episode.  As  pre-existent  spirit,  Jesus  had 
been  from  the  beginning  of  the  creation  "in 
the  form  of  God."  As  the  period  of  its  con- 
summation drew  near  He  took  upon  Him 
human  form,  descended  through  suffering 
and  death  to  the  lowest  depths  of  the  under- 
world, and  by  divine  power  had  reascended 
above  all  the  heavens  with  their  ranks  of 
angelic  hierarchies.  Whether  Paul  himself 
so  conceived  it  or  not,  the  Gentile  world  had 
no  other  moulds  of  thought  wherein  to  formu- 
late suchaChristology  than  the  current  myths 
of  Redeemer-gods.  The  value  of  the  indi- 
vidual soul  had  at  last  been  discovered,  and 
men  resorted  to  the  ancient  personifications 
of  the  forces  of  nature  as  deliverers  of  this 
new-found  soul  from  its  weakness  and  mor- 
tality. The  influential  religions  of  the  time 
were  those  of  personal  redemption  by  mystic 
union  with  a  dying  and  resurrected  "Saviour- 
god,"  an  Osiris,  an  Adonis,  an  Attis,  a  Mithra. 
Religions  of  this  type  were  everywhere  displac- 
ing the  old  national  faiths.  The  Gentile 
could  not  think  of  "the  Christ"  primarily 
as  a  Son  of  David  who  restores  the  kingdom 
to  Israel,  shatters  the  Gentiles  like  a  potter's 
vessel  and  rules  them  with  a  rod  of  iron.  If 
he  employed  this  Old  Testament  language  at 
all,  it  had  for  him  a  purely  symbolical  sense. 
The  whole  conception  was  spiritualized.  The 
"enemies"  overcome  were  the  spiritual  foes 
of  humanity,  sin  and  death;  "redemption" 
was  not  the  deliverance  of  Israel  out  of  the 


THE  REACTION  TO  CRITICISM     51 

hand  of  all  their  enemies,  that  (together  with 
all  afar  off  that  call  upon  the  name  of  this 
merciful  God)  they  may  "serve  Him  in 
holiness  and  righteousness  all  their  days." 
It  was  the  rescue  of  the  sons  of  Adam  out 
of  the  bondage  to  evil  Powers  incurred 
through  inheritance  of  Adam's  sinful  flesh. 
This  had  been  the  tendency  already  of  Jewish 
apocalypse.  The  starting-point  of  Paul's 
own  conceptions  was  not  Israel's  bondage  in 
Egypt,  but  a  conception  already  tinged,  like 
the  late  book  of  Jewish  philosophy  called  the 
Wisdom  of  Solomon,  with  the  Stoic  concep- 
tion of  *  flesh'  as  prison-house  of  'spirit,' 
already  inflamed,  like  the  contemporary  Jew- 
ish apocalypses  of  Esdras  and  Baruch,  with 
lurid  visions  of  a  universe  rescued  by  super- 
human power  from  a  thraldom  of  demonic 
rule.  Paul's  preaching  was  made  real  by  his 
own  experience.  For  if  ever  there  was  an 
evangelist  whose  message  was  his  own  experi- 
ence, Paul  was  such.  And  Paul's  experience 
was  not  so  much  that  of  a  Palestinian  Jew, 
as  that  of  a  Hellenist,  one  whose  whole  idea  of 
'redemption'  has  been  unconsciously  univer- 
salized, individualized,  and  spiritualized,  by 
contact  with  Greek  and  Hellenistic  thought. 
Paul  and  the  Galilean  apostles  were  not  far 
apart  in  their  expectations  of  the  future. 
Both  stood  gazing  up  into  heaven.  But  for 
his  authority  Paul  inevitably  looked  inwards, 
the  Galilean  apostles  looked  backwards. 
It  is  hopeless  at  the  present  stage  of  ac- 


52     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

quaintance  with  the  history  of  religion, 
particularly  the  spread  of  the  various  'mys- 
teries' and  religions  of  personal  redemp- 
tion in  the  early  empire,  to  deny  this  con- 
trast between  the  gospel  of  Paul  and  the 
gospel  of  "the  apostles  and  elders  at  Jeru- 
salem." It  is  shortsighted  to  overlook  its 
significance  in  the  transition  of  the  faith. 
Whereas  the  Jewish-Christian  had  as  its 
principal  background  the  national  history, 
more  or  less  transcendentalized  in  the  forms 
of  apocalypse,  Paul's  had  as  its  principal 
background  the  speculative  mythology  of 
the  Hellenistic  world,  more  or  less  adapted  to 
the  forms  of  Judaism.  Only  ignorance  of 
the  function  of  mythology,  especially  as  then 
employed  to  express  the  aspiration  of  the 
soul  for  purity,  life  and  fellowship  with  God, 
can  make  these  mythologically  framed  religi- 
ous ideas  seem  an  inappropriate  vehicle  to 
convey  Paul's  sense  of  the  significance  of 
Jesus'  message  and  life  of  "sonship."  They 
were  at  least  the  best  expression  those 
times  and  that  environment  could  afford  of 
the  greater  Kindgom  God  had  proclaimed  in 
the  resurrection  of  the  Christ,  and  was  bring- 
ing to  pass  through  the  outpouring  of  His 
Spirit. 

Modern  criticism  must  therefore  recognize 
that  the  beginnings  of  our  religion  were  not 
a  mere  enlargement  of  Judaism  by  abolition 
of  the  barriers  of  the  Law,  but  a  fusion  of  the 
two  great  streams  of  religious  thought  dis- 


THE  REACTION  TO  CRITICISM     53 

tinctive  of  the  Jewish  and  the  Hellenistic 
world  in  a  higher  unity.  Alexander's  hoped- 
for  "marriage  of  Europe  and  Asia"  was 
consummated  at  last  in  the  field  of  religion 
itself.  Denationalized  Judaism  contributed 
the  social  ideal:  the  messianic  hope  of  a 
world- wide  Kingdom  of  God.  It  is  the  worthy 
contribution  of  a  highly  ethical  national 
religion.  Hellenism  contributed  the  in- 
dividual ideal :  personal  redemption  in  mystic 
union  with  the  life  of  God.  It  is  a  concept 
derived  from  the  Greek's  newly-awakened 
consciousness  of  a  personality  agonizing  for 
deliverance  out  of  the  bondage  of  the  material 
and  transitory,  alien  and  degrading  to  its 
proper  life.  The  critic  who  has  become  a 
historian  of  ideas  will  find  his  study  of  the 
literature  of  the  apostolic  and  post-apostolic 
age  here  widening  out  into  a  prospect  of 
unsuspected  largeness  and  significance.  He 
will  see  as  the  two  great  divisions  of  his 
subject,  (1)  the  gospel  of  Jesus,  represented, 
as  we  are  told,  in  the  first  beginnings  of  liter- 
ary development  by  an  Aramaic  compilation 
of  the  Precepts  of  the  Lord  by  the  Apostle 
Matthew,  circulating  possibly  even  before  the 
great  Pauline  Epistles  among  the  Palestinian 
churches;  (2)  the  gospel  about  Jesus,  repre- 
sented in  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and  these 
based  on  their  author's  personal  experience. 
It  is  a  gospel  of  God's  action  "in  Christ, 
reconciling  the  world."  It  interprets  the  per- 
sonality of  Jesus  and  his  experience  of  the 


54     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

cross  and  resurrection  as  manifestations  of 
the  divine  idea.  The  interpretation  employs 
Hellenistically  coloured  forms  of  thought, 
and  is  forced  to  vindicate  itself  first  against 
subjection  to  legalism,  afterwards  against 
perversion  into  an  unethical,  superstitious 
theosophy.  But  surely  the  doctrine  about 
Jesus,  interpreting  the  significance  of  His 
person  and  work  as  the  culmination  of  re- 
demption through  the  indwelling  of  God  in 
men  and  among  men  belongs  as  much  to  the 
essence  of  Christianity  as  the  gospel  of  love 
and  faith  proclaimed  by  Jesus. 

Besides  these  two  principal  types  of  gospel 
and  their  subordinate  combinations  the  criti- 
cal historian  may  see  ultimately  emerging 
a  type  of  *  spiritual'  gospel,  growing  upon 
Gentile  soil,  in  fact,  receiving  its  first  literary 
expression  in  the  early  years  of  the  second 
century  at  the  very  headquarters  of  the 
Pauline  mission-field.  This  third  type  aims 
to  be  comprehensive  of  the  other  two.  It  is 
essentially  a  gospel  about  Jesus,  though  it 
takes  the  form  for  its  main  literary  expression 
of  a  gospel  preached  by  Jesus.  The  fourth 
evangelist  is  the  true  successor  of  Paul, 
though  the  conditions  of  the  age  compel  him 
to  go  beyond  the  literary  form  of  the  Epistle 
and  to  construct  a  Gospel  wherein  both 
factors  of  the  sacred  tradition  shall  appear, 
the  words  and  works,  the  Precepts  and  the 
Saving  Ministry  of  Jesus.  But  it  is  in  no 
mechanical  or  slavish  sense  that  the  fourth 


THE  REACTION  TO  CRITICISM     55 

evangelist  appeals  to  this  supreme  authority. 
He  lifts  the  whole  message  above  the  level 
of  mere  baptized  legalism,  even  while  he 
guards  it  against  the  unbridled  licence  of 
Gnostic  theosophy,  applying  to  this  purpose 
his  doctrine  of  the  Incarnate  Logos.  His 
basis  is  psychology  as  well  as  history.  It  is 
the  Life  which  is  the  light  of  men,  that  life 
whose  source  is  God,  and  which  permeates 
and  redeems  His  creation;  even  "the  eternal 
Life  which  was  with  the  Father  and  was 
manifested  to  us." 

In  the  critical  grouping  of  our  New  Testa- 
ment writings  the  Gospel  and  Epistles  of 
John  can  occupy,  then,  no  lesser  place  than 
that  of  the  keystone  of  the  arch. 

To  sum  up:  the  Literature  of  the  Apostle 
owed  its  early  development  and  long  contin- 
uance among  the  Pauline  churches  of  Asia 
Minor  and  Greece,  to  the  impetus  and  exam- 
ple of  Paul's  apostolic  authority.  The  Liter- 
ature of  the  Teacher  and  Prophet,  growing  up 
around  Jerusalem  and  its  daughter  churches 
at  Antioch  and  Rome,  came  slowly  to  surpass 
in  influence  the  "commandment  of  the  apos- 
tles," as  the  church  became  more  and  more 
exclusively  dependent  upon  it  for  the  "teach- 
ing of  the  Lord."  It  was  the  function  of  the 
great  "theologian"  of  Ephesus  (as  he  came 
early  to  be  called),  linking  the  authority  of 
both,  to  furnish  the  fundamental  basis  for  the 
catholic  faith. 


PART  II 

THE  LITERATURE  OF  THE   APOSTLE 

CHAPTER  III 

PAUL  AS  MISSIONARY  AND  DEFENDER   OF  THE 
GOSPEL   OF   GRACE 

MOST  vital  of  all  passages  for  historical 
appreciation  of  the  great  period  of  Paul's 
missionary  activity  and  its  literature  is  the 
retrospect  over  his  career  as  apostle  to  the 
Gentiles  and  defender  of  a  gospel  "without 
the  yoke  of  the  Law"  in  Gal.  i.-ii.  Espe- 
cially must  the  contrast  be  observed  between 
this  and  the  very  different  account  in  Acts 
ix.-xvi. 

Galatians  aims  to  counteract  the  encroach- 
ments of  certain  Judaizing  interlopers  upon 
Paul's  field,  and  seems  to  have  been  written 
from  Corinth,  shortly  after  his  arrival  there 
(c.  50)  on  the  Second  Missionary  Journey 
(Acts  xv.  36— xviii.  22).  We  take  "the 
churches  of  Galatia"  to  be  those  founded  by 
Paul  in  company  with  Barnabas  on  the  First 
Missionary  Journey  (Acts  xiii.-xiv),  and 
revisited  with  Silas  after  a  division  of  the 

56 


PAUL  AS  MISSIONARY  57 

recently  evangelized  territory  whereby  Cy- 
prus had  been  left  to  Barnabas  and  Mark 
(Acts  xv.  36— xvi.  5;  cf.  Gal.  iv.  13). 

The  retrospect  is  in  two  parts:  (1)  a  proof 
of  the  divine  origin  of  Paul's  apostleship  and 
gospel  by  the  independence  of  his  conversion 
and  missionary  career;  (2)  an  account  of 
his  defence  of  his  "gospel  of  uncircumcision " 
on  the  two  occasions  when  it  had  been 
threatened.  Visiting  Jerusalem  for  the  second 
time  some  fifteen  years  *  after  his  conversion, 
he  secured  from  its  "pillars,"  James,  Peter, 
and  John,  an  unqualified,  though  "private," 
endorsement.  At  Antioch  subsequently  he 
overcame  renewed  opposition  by  public  ex- 
posure of  the  inconsistency  of  Peter,  who  had 
been  won  over  by  the  reactionaries. 

Acts  reverses  Paul's  point  of  view,  making 
his  career  in  the  period  of  unobstructed 
evangelization  one  of  labour  for  Jews  alone, 
in  complete  dependence  on  the  Twelve.  It 
practically  excludes  the  period  of  opposition 
by  a  determination  of  the  Gentile  status  in 
an  'Apostolic  Council/  Paul  is  represented 
as  simply  acquiescing  in  this  decision. 

As  described  by  Paul,  the  whole  earlier 
period  of  fifteen  years  had  been  occupied  by 
missionary  effort  for  Gentiles,  first  at  Damas- 
cus, afterwards  "in  the  regions  of  Syria 
and  Cilicia."  It  was  interrupted  only  by  a 

1  Or  perhaps  thirteen.  Gal.  ii.  1  may  reckon  from  the 
conversion  (31-33).  In  both  periods  (Gal.  i.  18,  and  ii.  1) 
both  termini  are  counted. 


58     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

journey  "to  Arabia,"  and  later,  three  years 
after  his  conversion,  by  a  two-weeks'  private 
visit  to  Peter  in  Jerusalem.  In  this  period 
must  fall  most  of  the  journeys  and  adven- 
tures of  2nd  Cor.  xi.  23-33.  It  was  prac- 
tically without  contact  with  Judaea.  His 
"gospel"  was  what  God  alone  had  taught 
him  through  an  inward  manifestation  of  the 
risen  Jesus. 

As  described  by  Luke  1  the  whole  period 
was  spent  in  the  evangelization  of  Greek- 
speaking  Jews,  principally  at  Jerusalem. 
This  was  Paul's  chosen  field,  worked  under 
direction  of  "the  apostles."  Only  against 
his  will 2  was  he  driven  for  refuge  to  Tarsus, 
whence  Barnabas,  who  had  first  introduced 
him  to  the  apostles,  brought  him  to  Antioch. 
There  was  no  Gentile  mission  until  Barnabas 
and  he  were  by  that  church  made  its  '  apos- 
tles.' This  mission  was  on  express  direction 
of  "the  Spirit"  (Acts  ix.  19-30;  xi.  25  /.; 
xiii.  1-3;  cf.  xxii.  10-21).  Paul's  apostle- 
ship  to  the  Gentiles  begins,  then,  according 
to  Luke,  with  the  First  Missionary  Journey, 
when  in  company  with  (and  at  first  in  sub- 
ordination to)  Barnabas  he  evangelizes  Cy- 
prus and  southern  Galatia.  The  two  are 
agents  of  Antioch,  with  "letters  of  commen- 
dation" from  "the  apostles  and  elders  in 
Jerusalem"  (Acts  xv.  23-26).  Paul  is  not 

1  We  apply  the  name  to  the  writer  of  Luke-Acts  without 
prejudice  to  the  question  of  authorship. 

2  Acts  xxii.  10-21  is  not  quite  consistent  with  xxvi.  15-18; 
but  the  general  sense  is  clear. 


PAUL  AS  MISSIONARY  59 

an  apostle  of  Christ  in  the  same  sense  as  the 
Twelve  (cf.  Acts  i.  21  /.).  He  is  a  providen- 
tial "vessel  of  the  Spirit,"  ordained  "by 
men  and  through  men."  His  gospel  is  Peter's 
unaltered  (cf.  Acts  xxvi.  16-23). 

There  is  even  wider  disparity  regarding  the 
period  of  opposition.  Luke  slightly  post- 
pones its  beginning  and  very  greatly  ante- 
dates its  suppression.  Moreover,  he  makes 
Paul  accept  a  solution  which  his  letters  em- 
phatically repudiate. 

According  to  Acts  there  was  no  opposition 
before  the  First  Missionary  Journey,  for  the 
excellent  reason  that  there  had  been  no 
Gentile  propaganda.1  There  was  no  opposi- 
tion after  the  Council  called  to  consider  it 
(Acts  xv.),  for  the  conclusive  reason  that 
"the  apostles  and  elders"  left  nothing  to 
dispute  about.  As  soon  as  the  objections  were 
raised  the  church  in  Antioch  laid  the  question 
before  these  authorities,  sending  Paul  and 
Barnabas  to  testify.  On  their  witness  to  the 
grace  of  God  among  the  Gentiles,  Peter 
(explicitly  claiming  for  himself  ( !)  this  special 
apostleship,  Acts  xv.  7)  proposes  uncondi- 
tional acknowledgment  of  Gentile  liberty, 


1  Cornelius*  case  (Acts  x.  1 — xi.  18)  is  exceptional,  and 
no  propaganda  follows.  The  reading  "Greeks"  in  Acts  xi. 
20,  though  required  by  the  sense  and  therefore  adopted  by 
the.  English  translators,  is  not  supported  by  the  textual  evi- 
dence. Luke  has  here  corrected  his  source  to  suit  his  theory, 
just  as  in  x.  1 — xi.  18  he  passes  by  the  true  significance  of  the 
story,  which  really  deals  with  the  question  of  eating  with 
Gentiles  (xi.  3,7  f.) . 


60     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

referring  to  the  precedent  of  Cornelius.  In 
this  there  was  general  acquiescence.  In  fact 
the  matter  had  really  been  decided  before 
(Acts  xi.  1-18).  The  only  wholly  new  point 
was  that  raised  by  James  in  behalf  of  "the 
Jews  among  the  Gentiles"  (Acts  xv.  21;  cf. 
xxi.  21).  For  their  sake  it  is  held  "neces- 
sary "  to  limit  Gentile  freedom  on  four  points. 
They  must  abstain  from  three  prohibited 
meats,  and  from  fornication,  for  these  con- 
vey the  "pollution  of  idols."  The  "neces- 
sity" lies  in  the  fact  that  liberty  from  the  Law 
is  not  conceded  to  Jews.  They  will  be  (invol- 
untarily) defiled  if  they  eat  with  their  Gen- 
tile brethren  unprotected.  "Fornication"  is 
added  because  (in  the  words  of  an  ancient 
Jewish  Christian)  it  "differs  from  all  other 
sins  in  that  it  defiles  not  only  the  sinner,  but 
those  also  who  eat  or  associate  with  him.'9 
Paul  and  Barnabas,  according  to  Luke, 
gladly  accepted  these  "decrees,"  and  Paul 
distributed  them  "for  to  keep"  among  his 
converts  in  Galatia  ( !) .  Peter  is  the  apostle  to 
the  Gentiles.  Antioch  and  Jerusalem  decide 
the  question  of  their  status.  The  terms  of 
fellowship  are  those  of  James  and  Peter. 

Paul  has  no  mention  of  either  Council  or 
'decrees.'  His  terms  of  fellowship  positively 
exclude  both.  He  falls  back  upon  the  private 
Conference,  and  lays  bare  a  story  of  agonizing 
struggle  to  make  effective  its  recognition  of 
the  equality  and  independence  of  Gentile 
Christianity.  The  struggle  is  a  result  of  his 


PAUL  AS  MISSIONARY  61 

resistance  to  emissaries  "from  James"  at 
Antioch,  who  had  brought  over  all  the  Jewish 
element  in  that  mixed  church,  including  Peter 
and  "even  Barnabas"  to  terms  of  fellowship 
acceptable  to  the  Pillars.  After  the  collision 
at  Antioch  Paul  leaves  the  "regions  of  Syria 
and  Cilicia,"  and  transfers  the  scene  of  his 
missionary  efforts  to  the  Greek  world  between 
the  Taurus  range  and  the  Adriatic.  For  the 
next  ten  years  we  see  him  on  the  one  side 
conducting  an  independent  mission,  pro- 
claiming the  doctrine  of  the  Cross  as  inaugu- 
rating a  new  era,  wherein  law  has  been  done 
away,  and  Jew  and  Gentile  have  "access  in 
one  Spirit  unto  the  Father."  On  the  other 
he  is  defending  this  gospel  of  *  grace'  against 
unscrupulous  Jewish-Christian  traducers,  and 
labouring  to  reconcile  differences  between  his 
own  followers  and  those  of  'the  circum- 
cision' who  are  not  actively  hostile,  but  only 
have  taken '  offence. '  Throughout  the  period, 
until  the  arrest  in  Jerusalem  which  ends  his 
career  as  an  evangelist,  Paul  stands  alone  as 
champion  of  unrestricted  Gentile  liberty  and 
equality.  He  cannot  admit  terms  of  fellow- 
ship which  imply  a  continuance  of  the  legal 
dispensation.  Jewish  Christians  may  keep 
circumcision  and  the  customs  if  they  wish; 
but  may  not  hold  or  recommend  them  as 
conferring  the  slightest  advantage  in  God's 
sight.  He  will  not  admit  the  doctrine  of 
salvation  by  faith  with  works  of  law.  Jew  as 
well  as  Gentile  must  have  "died  to  the  Law." 


62     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

There  is  no  "justification"  except  "by  faith 
apart  from  works  of  law." l 

Unless  we  distinctly  apprehend  the  deep 
difference,  almost  casually  brought  out  by 
this  question  of  the  (converted)  Jew  among 
Gentiles  and  his  obligation  to  eat  with  his 
Gentile  brother,  a  difference  between  *  apos- 
tolic' Christianity  as  Luke  gives  it,  and  the 
*  gospel'  of  Paul,  we  can  have  no  adequate 
appreciation  of  the  great  Epistles  produced 
during  this  period  of  conflict.  The  basis  of 
Luke's  pleasing  picture  of  peace  and  concord 
is  a  fundamentally  different  conception  of  the 
relation  of  Law  and  Grace.  Paul  and  Luke 
both  hold  that  the  Mosaic  commandments  are 
not  binding  on  Gentiles.  The  point  of  differ- 
ence— and  Paul's  own  account  of  his  Confer- 
ence with  the  Pillars  goes  to  show  that  Luke's 
idea  is  also  theirs;  else  why  need  there  be  a 
division  of  'spheres  of  influence'  ? — is  Paul's 
doctrine  that  the  believing  Jew  as  well  as  the 
Gentile  is  "dead  to  the  Law."  And  this 
doctrine  was  never  accepted  south  of  the 
Taurus  range. 

Agreement  and  union  were  sure  to  come,  if 
only  by  the  rapid  disappearance  from  the 
church  after  70  A.D.  of  the  element  of  the 
circumcised,  and  the  progressive  realization 
in  'Syria  and  Cilicia'  of  the  impracticability 

1  The  assertion  has  recently  been  made  in  very  high 
quarters  on  the  basis  of  1st  Cor.  vii.  18  that  Paul  also  took 
the  "apostolic"  view  that  the  Christian  of  Jewish  birth 
remains  under  obligation  to  keep  the  law.  One  would  think 
Paul  had  not  added  verse  19! 


PAUL  AS  MISSIONARY  63 

of  the  Jerusalem-Antioch  plan  of  requiring 
Gentiles  to  make  their  tables  innocuous  to  the 
legalist.  If  only  the  participation  of  Paul  and 
Barnabas  be  excluded  from  the  story  of  Acts 
xv.  (or  better,  restored  to  its  proper  sequence 
after  Acts  xi.  30)  we  have  every  reason  to 
accept  Luke's  account  of  an  Apostolic  Coun- 
cil held  at  Jerusalem  not  long  after  "Peter 
came  to  Antioch"  to  settle  between  the 
churches  of  northern  and  southern  Syria  the 
knotty  question  of  the  Christian  Jew's  eating 
or  not  eating  with  Gentiles.  It  is  almost  cer- 
tain that  Syria  did  adopt  this  modus  vivendi 
for  "the  brethren  which  are  of  the  Gentiles  in 
Antioch9  Syria  and  Cilicia"  (Acts  xv.  23); 
for  we  can  trace  its  gradual  obsolescence 
there.  In  Revelation  (a  book  of  Palestinian 
origin  republished  at  Ephesus  c.  95;  cf.  Rev. 
ii.  14,  20,  24)  in  the  Teaching  of  the  Twelve 
(125),  and  in  the  'Western'  text  of  Acts  xv. 
(150?)  there  is  a  progressive  scaling  down  of 
the  'burden.'  Gentiles  are  at  last  asked  to  do 
almost  nothing  more  than  Paul  had  demanded 
on  moral  grounds  without  recognition  of 
the  validity  of  "distinctions  of  meats."  In 
A.D.  120  the  'burden*  is:  "Concerning 
meats,  keep  what  thou  art  able;  however, 
abstain  at  all  events  from  things  offered  to 
idols,  for  it  is  the  food  of  dead  gods." 

But  to  take  Luke's  account  of  how  peace 
was  restored,  with  its  implication  that  the 
Pauline  gospel  as  developed  in  Greek  Chris- 
tendom between  the  Taurus  range  and  the 


64     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Adriatic  was  nothing  more  than  a  branch 
from  the  parent  stock  of  the  'apostolic' 
church  in  "Syria  and  Cilicia,"  would  be  like 
viewing  the  history  of  the  United  States  from 
the  standpoint  of  a  British  imperialist  of  a 
period  of  Anglo-Saxon  reunion  in  A.D.  2000, 
who  should  omit  entirely  the  American  War 
of  Independence,  holding  that  Washington 
and  Franklin  after  bearing  testimony  before 
Parliament  accepted  for  the  colonies  a  plan 
of  settlement  prepared  by  a  Liberal  Govern- 
ment which  reduced  to  a  minimum  the  ob- 
noxious requirements  of  the  Tories. 

The  history  of  this  period  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  independent  'gospel'  of  Paul 
and  of  his  independent  churches  is  so  vital, 
and  so  confused  by  generations  of  well- 
meaning  'harmonizers,'  that  we  must  take 
time  to  contrast  once  more  Luke's  theory  of 
the  process  of  reunion  with  Paul's. 

In  Acts  Paul  takes  precisely  the  view  of 
Peter  and  James.  He  is  himself  'under  the 
Law.'  He  does  not  disregard  it  even  among 
Gentiles.  On  the  contrary,  he  sets  an  ex- 
ample of  scrupulous  legality  to  the  Jews 
among  the  Gentiles,  himself  'walking  orderly, 
keeping  the  Law.'  The  statement  that  he 
"teaches  them  to  forsake  Moses,  telling  them 
not  to  circumcise  their  children,  nor  to  obey 
the  customs"  is  a  calumny  (!)  which  he  takes 
public  occasion  to  disprove  (Acts  xxi.  20-26) . 
Before  the  Sanhedrin  he  emphatically  declares 
himself  a  consistent  Pharisee  (Acts  xxiii.  1,6); 


PAUL  AS  MISSIONARY  65 

before  Felix  and  Festus,  blameless  by  the 
standard  of  Law  and  Prophets  (xxiv.  14-16; 
xxv.  8);  before  Agrippa,  a  strict  Pharisee  in 
his  conduct  hitherto  (xxvi.  5,  22/.).  Titus, 
whose  circumcision  Paul  strenuously  resisted, 
is  never  mentioned  in  Acts.  Conversely 
Timothy  (a  Jew  only  on  his  mother's  side) 
Paul  "took  and  circumcised"  immediately 
after  the  Jerusalem  Council  "because  of  the 
Jews  that  were  in  those  parts"  (Galatia!). 
His  visit  with  Barnabas  to  Jerusalem  is  not 
occasioned  by  opposition  to  Gentile  missions, 
though  it  falls  between  Barnabas'  mission 
from  Jerusalem  to  investigate  the  alarming 
reports  of  Gentile  conversions  at  Antioch, 
and  the  First  Missionary  Journey  on  which 
the  two  take  with  them  Mark,  who  had  ac- 
companied them  from  Jerusalem.  No;  ac- 
cording to  Luke  Gentile  missions  did  not  yet 
exist1  (!).  This  visit  (that  of  the  Conference, 
Gal.  ii.  1-10)  was  merely  to  convey  a  gift 
from  the  Antioch  church  to  that  of  Jerusalem 
because  of  the  famine  "about  that  time"  (it 
occurred  in  46-47).  Conversely  the  great 
'offering  of  the  Gentiles'  made  at  the  risk  of 
Paul's  life  in  company  with  delegates  from 
each  province  of  his  field,  as  a  proffer  of  peace, 
the  enterprise  which  occupies  so  large  a  place 
in  his  effort  and  his  letters  of  this  period  (1st 
Cor.  xvi.  1-6;  2nd  Cor.  8-9;  Rom.  xv.  15, 
16,  25-32),  has  in  Acts  no  relation  to  the  con- 

1  On  the  reading  "Greeks"  in  Acts  xi.  20  see  note  above, 
p.  59. 


66     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

troversy — for  the  demonstration  of  Paul's 
exemplary  legalism  in  the  temple  is  merely 
incidental.  The  gift  Paul  brought  was  "alms 
to  my  nation "  (!)  (Acts  xxiv.  17) .  The  reader 
asks  in  vain  what  necessitates  this  dangerous 
journey.  The  only  motives  assigned  are  a 
Nazarite  vow  assumed  in  Cenchreae  (xviii.  18; 
xxi.  24),  and  regard  for  the  Jewish  feasts  (xx. 
16). 

The  background  of  history  against  which 
the  modern  reader  must  place  the  great  letters 
of  Paul  of  the  first  period,  is  manifestly  some- 
thing quite  different  from  the  mere  unsifted 
story  of  Acts.  Their  real  origin  is  in  a  pro- 
found difference  in  Paul's  idea  of  'the 
gospel'  and  the  necessity  of  defending  the 
independence  of  it  and  of  the  Gentile  churches 
founded  on  it.  The  difference  originates  in 
Paul's  own  religious  experience.  It  found  its 
first  expression  in  his  antithesis  of  Law  and 
Grace,  his  doctrine  that  the  cross  marks  the 
abolition  of  the  economy  of  Law. 

Both  in  Galatians  and  everywhere  else  Paul 
treats  on  equal  terms  with  the  representatives 
of  the  "apostleship  of  the  circumcision."  He 
denounces  Peter  and  "the  rest  of  the  Jews," 
including  "even  Barnabas,"  at  Antioch,  after 
they  have  withdrawn  from  Gentile  fellowship 
in  order  to  preserve  their  legal  'cleanness,' 
and  the  point  of  the  denunciation  is  that  this 
is  inconsistent  with  their  (implied)  abandon- 
ment of  the  Law  as  a  means  of  salvation 
when  they  "sought  to  be  justified  by  faith  in 


PAUL  AS  MISSIONARY  67 

Christ."  This  makes  their  conduct  not  only 
inconsistent  but  cowardly  and  "hypocritical." 

Here  is  something  far  deeper  than  a  mere 
question  of  policy.  Paul's  attitude  shows  that 
from  the  beginning  he  has  really  been  preach- 
ing "a  different  gospel."  A  gospel  about 
Christ  in  which  the  central  fact  is  the  cross  as 
the  token  of  the  abolition  of  a  dispensation 
of  Law  wherein  Jew  and  Gentile  alike  were  in 
a  servile  relation  to  God,  under  angelic  (or 
demonic)  "stewards  and  governors,"  and  the 
inauguration  of  a  dispensation  of  Grace, 
wherein  all  who  have  'faith'  and  receive  in 
baptism  the  gift  of  'the  Spirit,'  are  thereby 
adopted  to  be  God's  sons.  Beside  this  cosmic 
drama  of  the  cross  and  resurrection  wherein 
God  reveals  his  redemptive  purpose  for  the 
world,  the  mere  inculcation  of  the  easy  yoke 
of  Jesus  as  a  new  Law,  simplifying  and 
supplementing  the  old  by  restoring  the  doc- 
trine of  forgiveness  for  the  repentant  be- 
liever (cf.  Matt,  xxviii.  20;  Acts  x.  42  /.; 
xiii.  39;  xxvi.  22/.)  seems  only  half  a  gospel. 

Paul  can  never  surrender  the  independence 
of  his  God-given  message,  nor  the  liberty 
wherewith  Christ  has  made  all  believers  free 
in  abolishing  the  economy  of  law  and  making 
them  "sons"  by  the  Spirit.  And  yet  he  is 
even  more  determined  to  achieve  peace  and 
reunion  than  the  apostles  'of  the  circum- 
cision'; only  he  has  a  different  plan.  Paul 
and  his  churches  fall  back  upon  the  Jerusalem 
Conference,  not  upon  the  'Apostolic  Council.' 


68     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

The  Conference  is  their  Magna  Charta.  Its 
recognition  of  Paul's  independent  gospel  and 
apostleship  as  no  less  divine  than  Peter's  is 
their  guarantee  of  liberty  and  equality;  its 
request  for  brotherly  aid  is  their  promise  of 
fraternity. 

Approaches  were  made  on  both  sides.  It 
is  true  the  ill-advised  attempt  of  the  Juda- 
izers  to  secure  unity  by  a  renewal  of  their 
propaganda  of  the  Law,  seducing  the  Greek 
churches  from  their  loyalty  to  Paul  and  his 
gospel,  provoked  from  him  only  such  thun- 
derbolts as  Galatians,  with  its  defence  of  "the 
liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made  us  free," 
or  2nd  Cor.  x.  1  to  xiii.  10,  with  its  denunci- 
ation of  the  "ministers  of  Satan."  Peace 
through  surrender  was  not  to  Paul's  mind. 
But  the  sincere  attempt  of  the  followers  of 
Peter  to  find  a  modus  vivendi,  even  if  they  did 
not  venture  to  claim  liberty  from  the  Law  for 
themselves,  found  Paul  prepared  to  go  more 
than  half-way.  His  epistles  are  not  more 
remarkable  for  their  strenuous  defence  of 
the  liberty  of  sonship,  than  for  their  insistence 
on  the  obligation  of  brotherly  love.  His 
churches  must  be  not  only  morally  pure  for 
their  own  sakes,  but  must  avoid  offences  to 
the  more  scrupulous.  Even  that  which  Chris- 
tian liberty  allows  must  be  sacrificed  to  the 
scruples  of  the  'weak,'  if  only  it  be  not 
"unto  doubtful  disputations,"  or  demanded 
as  of  right.  From  1st  Thessalonians  (Corinth, 
A.D.  50),  where,  in  the  absence  of  all  Judaizing 


PAUL  AS  MISSIONARY  69 

opposition,  Paul  merely  exhibits  his  simple 
gospel  of  the  resurrection  and  judgment  to 
come,  unaffected  by  questions  of  Law  and 
Grace,  on  through  Galatians  with  its  sublime 
polemic  for  the  liberty  of  sons,  to  the  Corin- 
thian correspondence,  with  its  insistence  on 
the  duty  of  consideration  and  forbearance, 
its  stronger  note  of  love,  its  revelation  of 
the  widespread,  strenuous  exertions  of  Paul 
to  promote  his  great  'offering/  down  to 
Romans,  where  the  'offering  of  the  Gentiles' 
is  ready  to  be  made  (Rom.  xv.  16-33),  and 
Paul  is  sedulously  preparing  to  enter  a  great 
new  field  already  partially  occupied,  by 
presenting  a  full  and  superlatively  concilia- 
tory statement  of  his  entire  'gospel'  (i.  15-17), 
there  is  steady  progress  toward  the  "peace" 
and  "acceptance"  which  he  hopes  to  find  in 
Jerusalem.  The  later  Epistles,  with  their 
different  phase  of  conflict,  the  very  attitude 
of  'apostolic'  Christianity  toward  Paul,  as 
exhibited  in  Acts,  make  it  incredible  that 
substantial  unity  was  not  in  fact  secured.1 
We  cannot,  indeed,  accept  Luke's  representa- 
tion of  Paul  as  performing  the  Nazarite  cere- 
monial in  the  temple  in  order  to  prove  that  he 
does  not  teach  that  the  Law  is  not  binding  on 
Jews.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  Paul  may 

1  The  actual  outcome  is  seen  in  the  reduction  of  the  'bur- 
den' to  the  two  items  of  abstinence  from  "fornication  and 
from  things  offered  to  idols."  Paul's  nicer  distinctions  under 
the  latter  head  (1st  Cor.  viii.  1-13,  x.  14-23)  as  well  as  his 
distinction  between  the  ceremonial  and  the  moral  grounds  for 
abstinence,  were  "disregarded. 


70     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

not  have  done  even  this  to  prove  that  his 
principle  of  accommodation  to  the  weak  (1st 
Cor.  ix.  19-22)  left  ample  room  for  fellowship 
with  the  Jewish  Christian — except  when  (as 
with  Peter  and  Barnabas  at  Antioch)  the 
needless  scruples  of  the  legalist  were  made  a 
pretext  for  "compelling  the  Gentiles  to  live  as 
do  the  Jews." 

Had  unity  been  attained  through  the  simple 
process  imagined  by  Luke,  obedient  acquies- 
cence of  Paul  and  the  Gentiles  in  the  divinely 
inspired  verdict  of  "the  apostles  and  elders 
in  Jerusalem,"  Christianity  would  have  been 
an  immeasurably  poorer  thing  than  it  became. 
Indeed,  it  is  questionable  whether  a  gospel  of 
mere  simplification,  extension,  and  supplemen- 
tation of  the  Law  would  ever  have  made 
permanent  conquest  of  the  Gentile  world. 
It  is  because  Paul  stood  out  on  this  question 
of  'meats'  for  the  equal  right  of  his  inde- 
pendent gospel,  refusing  submission  until  his 
great  ten-years'  work  of  evangelization  by 
tongue  and  pen  had  made  Gentile  Christian- 
ity a  factor  of  at  least  equal  importance  with 
Jewish,  that  our  religion  was  enriched  by  its 
Hellenistic  strain.  The  deeper  insight  into 
the  real  significance  of  Jesus'  work  and  fate 
born  of  Paul's  peculiar  experience  and  his 
Hellenistic  apprehension  of  the  gospel  found 
embodiment  in  the  beginnings  of  a  New 
Testament  literature.  The  writings  of  this 
period  must  accordingly  be  viewed  against 
the  background  of  a  critical  history.  Luke's 


PAUL  AS  MISSIONARY  71 

account,  written  in  the  interest  of  "apostolic" 
authority,  must  receive  such  modifications  as 
the  contemporary  documents  require. 

Taking  up  the  story  at  the  point  of  diver- 
gence we  see  Paul  and  Barnabas  returning  to 
Antioch  after  the  Conference  with  the  Pillars, 
glad  at  heart,  and  expecting  now  to  resume 
the  work  for  Gentiles  without  impediment. 
Besides  Titus,  John  Mark  of  Jerusalem,  a 
nephew  of  Barnabas,  accompanied  them. 
The  Missionary  Journey  to  Cyprus  and 
(southern)  Galatia  follows,  Mark  returning, 
however,  to  Jerusalem  after  leaving  Cyprus. 

It  was  probably  during  the  absence  of  the 
missionaries  that  "Peter  came  to  Antioch" 
and,  at  first,  followed  the  Pauline  practice 
of  disregarding  'distinctions  of  meats.' 
Later,  on  arrival  of  certain  "from  James"  he 
"drew  back  and  separated  himself,  fearing 
those  of  the  circumcision."  While  matters 
were  at  this  stage  Paul  and  Barnabas  re- 
appeared on  the  scene.  Paul  thought  it 
necessary  to  rebuke  Peter  "openly,  before 
them  all."  Barnabas,  former  head  of  the 
Antioch  church,  took  sides  with  Peter  and 
"the  rest  of  the  Jews,"  doubtless  determining 
the  attitude  of  the  church;  for  Paul  says 
nothing  of  prevailing  upon  them  by  his 
argument,  but  merely  turns  it  at  once  upon 
the  Galatians  themselves.  Moreover,  Bar- 
nabas now  takes  Cyprus  as  his  mission-field, 
with  Mark  as  his  helper,  while  Paul  with  a 
new  companion,  Silvanus  (in  Acts  "Silas,"  a 


72     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

bearer  of  the  'decrees'  from  Jerusalem) 
takes  the  northern  half  of  the  newly  evangel- 
ized territory,  and  through  much  difficulty 
and  opposition  makes  his  way  to  the  coasts 
of  the  JEgean. 

This  second  visit  to  the  churches  of  Galatia 
(Acts  xvi.  1-5)  was  signalized  by  warnings 
against  the  (possible)  preaching  of  "another 
gospel"  (Gal.  i.  9);  for  Paul  had  reason  to 
anticipate  trouble  from  the  "false  brethren." 
If  Acts  may  be  believed,  it  was  also  marked 
by  an  extraordinary  evidence  of  Paul's  readi- 
ness to  "become  all  things  to  all  men"  in 
the  interest  of  conciliation.  He  is  said  to 
have  circumcised  a  Galatian  half-Jew  named 
Timothy.  If  so,  it  was  certainly  not  to  prove 
his  respect  for  the  legal  requirement,  but 
rather  its  indifference.  "  Circumcision  is  noth- 
ing and  uncircumcision  nothing;  only  faith 
working  through  love."  But  these  generous 
'accommodations'  of  Paul  produced  more 
of  misrepresentation  than  of  conciliation.  He 
had  cause  to  regret  his  liberality  later  (Gal.  i. 
10;  v.  ll/.;  cf.  1st  Cor.  vii.  18). 

Some  unexplained  obstacle  (Acts  xvi.  6) 
prevented  Paul's  entrance  into  the  Province  of 
Asia  at  this  time.  Ephesus,  his  probable  ob- 
jective, had  perhaps  already  been  occupied 
(xviii.  24-28).  He  turned  north  through 
Phrygia-Galatia,  hoping  to  find  a  field  in 
Bithynia,  but  was  again  disappointed.  At 
Troas,  the  very  extremity  of  Asia,  came  the 
turning-point  in  the  fortunes  of  the  mission- 


PAUL  AS  MISSIONARY  73 

aries.  Encouraged  by  a  vision  they  crossed 
into  Macedonia  and  found  fields  white  for  the 
harvest. 

The  Epistles  to  Thessalonica  address  one 
of  these  Macedonian  churches  from  Corinth, 
whither  the  missionaries  have  been  driven. 
Timothy  had  been  sent  back  from  Athens 
when  Paul's  own  repeated  attempts  to  return 
had  been  frustrated,  and  has  just  arrived  with 
good  news  of  the  church's  perseverance  in 
spite  of  a  persecution  stirred  up  by  the  Jews. 
It  is  against  these,  apparently,  not  against 
Jewish-Christian  detractors,  that  Paul  de- 
fends his  character  and  message  (1st  Thess.  ii. 
1-13).  There  is  also  an  urgent  warning 
against  fornication  (iv.  1-8)  and  exhortation 
to  abound  in  love  (iv.  9-12),  with  correction 
of  the  natural  Greek  tendency  to  misappre- 
hend the  Jewish  eschatology  and  resurrec- 
tion-doctrine (iv.  13 — v.  1-11;  cf.  1st  Cor. 
xv.).  The  closing  admonitions  relate  to  the 
direction  of  church  meetings  and  discipline. 

2nd  Thessalonians  corrects  and  supple- 
ments the  eschatology  of  1st  Thessalonians  by 
adding  a  doctrine  of  Antichrist,  which  is  at  all 
events  thoroughly  Jewish  and  earlier  than  70, 
when  the  temple  was  destroyed  in  which  it 
expects  the  manifestation  of  "the  man  of  sin." 
It  is  the  only  one  of  the  Epistles  of  this  period 
whose  authenticity  is  seriously  questioned  by 
critical  scholarship.  How  little  this  affects 
the  question  of  Paul's  'gospel*  may  be  seen 
by  the  fact  that  the  entire  contents  cover 


74     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

less  than  3  per  cent,  of  the  earlier  Epistles, 
while  the  subject  is  a  mere  detail. 

Far  more  significant  is  it  to  observe  the 
close  correspondence  between  the  missionary 
preaching  of  Paul  as  here  described  by  him- 
self (1st  Thess.  i.  9  /.)  and  the  general  apos- 
tolic message  (kerygma)  as  described  by  Luke 
(Acts  x.  42  /.;  xiv.  15-17;  xvii.  24-31). 
Where  there  are  no  Judaizers  there  is  no 
reference  to  the  dispensations  of  Law  and 
Grace  and  the  abolition  of  the  former  in  the 
Cross.  The  doctrine  is  the  common  gospel 
of  the  Resurrection,  wherein  Jesus  has  been 
manifested  as  the  Messiah.  Faith  in  Him 
secures  forgiveness  to  the  repentant;  all 
others  are  doomed  to  perish  in  the  judgment 
shown  by  His  *  manifestation'  to  be  at  hand 
(cf.  1st  Cor.  xv.  11;  Rom.  i.  3-5). 

Galatians  was  written  but  slightly  before 
(or  after?)  the  letters  to  Thessalonica.  Its 
single  theme  (after  the  retrospect)  is  the 
Adoption  to  Sonship  through  the  Spirit. 
Against  the  Judaizer's  plea  that  to  share  in 
the  Inheritance  one  must  be  adopted  (prefer- 
ably by  circumcision)  into  the  family  of 
Abraham,  or  at  all  events  pay  respect  to  the 
Mosaic  Law,  Paul  asserts  the  single  fact  of 
the  adoption  of  the  Spirit.  "It  is  because 
ye  are  sons  that  God  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of 
His  Son  into  our  hearts  crying  (in  the  ecstatic 
utterances  of  'tongues')  Abba,  that  is, 
Father"  (Gal.  iv.  6).  To  go  back  to  legal 
observances  is  to  revert  from  redemption  to 


PAUL  AS  MISSIONARY  75 

bondage.  All  Christians  are  indeed  sons  of 
Abraham,  but  only  as  sharers  of  his  trust 
in  God.  Abraham  was  made  "heir  of  the 
world"  (Rom.  iv.  13)  for  his  faith.  Circum- 
cision and  the  Law  came  afterwards.  They 
were  not  superimposed  stipulations  and  con- 
ditions of  the  promise.  On  the  contrary  they 
were  temporary  pedagogic  measures  intended 
to  produce  the  consciousness  of  sin  and 
(moral)  death,  so  that  when  the  Heir  should 
come  men  should  be  ready  to  cast  themselves 
on  the  mercy  of  God  displayed  in  his  vicarious 
death.1  Thus  the  messianic  Redemption  is 
a  redemption  from  a  system  issuing  in  sin  and 
death.  On  the  cross  even  the  sinless  Christ 
incurred  the  curse  in  order  that  believers  thus 
redeemed  might  have  the  Blessing  of  the 
Abrahamic  promise  (Gal.  iii.  1 — iv.  7). 

But  this  transfer  from  bondage  to  liberty, 
from  the  legal  to  the  filial  relation,  does  not 
"make  Christ  a  minister  of  sin."  On  the 
contrary,  if  the  delivering  Spirit  of  sonship 
has  been  received  at  all,  it  controls  the  life 
for  purity  and  love.  One  cannot  be  a  son 
and  be  unfilial  or  unbrotherly.  The  unity  of 
the  redeemed  world  in  Christ  is  the  unity  of 
loving  service,  not  of  subjection  to  a  bygone 


1  Romans  enlarges  the  conception  of  the  economy  of  Law 
by  making  it  include  the  Gentile  law  of  'conscience'  (Rom. 
i.  18 — ii.  16).  In  Galatians  this  point  is  covered  only  by 
classing  the  "angels"  through  whom  the  Mosaic  Law  was 
given,  with  the  "Elements"  honoured  in  Gentile  religion. 
Both  are  codes  of  "stewards  and  governors." 


70     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

system  of  rules  (iv.  8 — vi.  18).  Thus  does 
Galatians  meet  the  insidious  plea  of  the 
Judaizers,  and  their  charges  against  Pauline 
liberty. 

The  church  founded  by  Paul  in  Corinth 
(Acts  xviii.  1-17)  was  grounded  from  the 
beginning  in  this  doctrine  of  the  Cross.  Paul 
purposely  restricted  himself  to  it  (1st  Cor. 
i.  17-25;  ii.  1-5).  He  had  indeed  a  world- 
view,  of  which  we  learn  more  in  the  Epistles 
of  the  Captivity,  a  philosophy  revealed  by  the 
Spirit  as  a  "mystery  of  God."  Those  who 
afterwards  in  Corinth  came  to  call  themselves 
followers  "of  Apollos"  had  nothing  to  teach 
him  on  this  score.  But  consideration  of  this 
Grecizing  tendency,  too  often  issuing  in  a 
mere  "philosophy  and  vain  deceit  after  the 
Elements  of  the  world  and  not  after  Christ" 
(Col.  ii.  8),  must  be  deferred,  in  favour  of 
questions  which  became  more  immediately 
pressing.  For  after  Paul  had  left  Corinth  to 
make  a  brief  visit  via  Ephesus  to  Csesarea  and 
Antioch,  and  had  returned  through  the  now 
pacified  Galatian  churches  to  make  Ephesus 
his  permanent  headquarters  (Acts  xviii.  18- 
23),  he  received  disturbing  news  of  conditions 
in  Corinth.  Under  Apollos  (now  at  Ephesus 
with  Paul)  an  Alexandrian  convert  thor- 
oughly indoctrinated  with  Paul's  gospel  (Acts 
xviii,  24-28)  the  church  had  flourished,  but 
discussions  had  subsequently  arisen,  resulting 
in  a  letter  to  Paul  asking  his  advice  on 
disputed  points.  Besides  this  there  were 


PAUL  AS  MISSIONARY  77 

moral  blemishes.  First  the  factious  strife 
itself,  of  which  Paul  has  learned  from  new- 
comers from  Corinth;  secondly  a  case  of 
unpunished  incest.  A  previous  letter  from 
Paul  (now  lost,  or  but  partially  preserved  in 
2nd  Cor.  vi.  14 — vii.  1)  had  required  the 
church  "to  have  no  company  with  forni- 
cators."  The  church,  making  the  application 
general,  had  pleaded  the  impracticability  of 
"going  out  of  the  world."  Paul  now  ex- 
plains: "If  any  man  that  is  named  a  brother 
be  a  fornicator  .  .  .  with  such  a  one  no,  not 
to  eat."  After  further  rebuke  for  litigious- 
ness,  and  a  lack  of  moral  tone,  especially  in 
the  matter  of  "fornication"  (ch.  vi.),  Paul 
takes  up  seriatim  "the  things  whereof  ye 
wrote."  We  are  chiefly  interested  in  the 
long  section  (viii.  1 — xi.  1)  on  "things  offered 
to  idols"  wherein  Paul  instructs  those  who 
would  be  imitators  of  his  freedom,  but  who 
forget  that  he  has  always  refused  to  assert 
his  rights  when  thereby  the  'weak'  were 
stumbled.  Moreover  fornication  is  never 
among  the  permissible  things,  nor  even  the 
eating  of  meats  offered  to  idols  at  the  heathen 
banquet  itself.  Such  food  is  unobjectionable 
only  when  it  has  been  sold  in  the  market, 
and  can  be  eaten  without  'offence.' 

The  other  questions  related  to  church 
meetings  for  the  "Lord's  supper"  and  the 
exercise  of  "spiritual  gifts."  They  give 
opportunity  for  the  development  of  Paul's 
noble  doctrine  of  unity  through  loving  service 


78     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

(xi.  2 — xiv.  40).  The  doctrinal  section  of 
1st  Corinthians  concludes  with  a  full  state- 
ment of  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 
body  (called  forth  by  Greek  objections  to 
the  Jewish).  From  the  items  of  business  at 
the  close  we  learn  that  "the  collection  for  the 
saints"  has  been  under  way  some  time 
already  "in  Galatia,"  and  that  Paul  hopes, 
after  passing  through  Macedonia,  to  join  the 
delegation  which  is  to  carry  the  money  to 
Jerusalem  (xvi.  1-6). 

As  it  turned  out  Paul  actually  followed  the 
itinerary  outlined  in  1st  Cor.  xvi.  1-6,  but 
not  until  after  distressing  experiences.  Timo- 
thy, sent  (by  way  of  Macedonia,  Acts  xix.  22) 
as  Paul's  representative  (iv.  17;  xvi.  10  /.), 
was  unable  to  restore  order.  The  opposition 
to  Paul's  apostolic  authority,  treated  almost 
contemptuously  in  ix.  1-14,  grew  to  alarming 
proportions.  Paul  received  so  direct  and 
personal  an  affront  (either  on  a  hasty  visit 
undertaken  in  person  from  Ephesus,  or  in  the 
person  of  Timothy)  that  he  despatched  a 
peremptory  ultimatum,  whose  effect  he  is 
anxiously  waiting  to  hear  when  2nd  Corin- 
thians opens  with  Paul  driven  out  from 
Ephesus,  a  refugee  in  Macedonia  (c.  55).  It 
is  highly  probable  that  the  disconnected 
section  appended  between  2nd  Cor.  ix.  15 
and  the  Farewell,  is  taken  from  this  "grievous" 
letter  written  "out  of  much  affliction  and 
anguish  of  heart  with  many  tears"  (2nd  Cor. 
ii.  1-4;  vii.  8-16);  for  it  was  not  only  a 


PAUL  AS  MISSIONARY  79 

peremptory  demand  for  punishment  of  the 
offender,  but  also  a  letter  of  forced  self-com- 
mendation. Paul  cannot  have  written  in 
self-commendation  on  more  than  one  occa- 
sion, and  he  promises  not  to  repeat  this  in  iii. 
Iff.  We  may  take  2nd  Cor.  x.-xiii.,  then,  as 
representing  the  "grievous"  letter.  The  op- 
position emanates  from  Judaizers  who  say 
they  are  "of  Christ,"  and  may  therefore  be 
identical  with  those  of  1st  Cor.  i.  12.  But  it 
has  grown  to  proportions  which  for  a  time 
made  Paul  despair  of  the  church's  loyalty. 
Titus'  arrival  in  Macedonia  with  news  of  their 
restored  obedience  had  been  an  inexpressible 
relief  (ii.  5-17;  vii.  8-16).  It  remains  only  to 
set  his  'ministry  of  the  new  covenant'  once 
more  in  contrast  with  the  Mosaic  *  ministry  of 
condemnation  and  death,'  including  further 
elucidation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 
body  (iii.  1 — vi.  10)  and  to  urge  generosity  in 
the  matter  of  the  collection  (chh.  viii.-ix.). 

The  somewhat  disordered,  but  unmistak- 
ably genuine  material  of  2nd  Corinthians  was 
probably  given  out  as  a  kind  of  residuum  of 
Pauline  material  long  after  our  1st  Corinthi- 
ans had  been  put  in  circulation,  perhaps  when 
renewed  strife  had  caused  the  church  in  Rome 
to  intervene  through  Clement  (95),  who 
quotes  1st  Corinthians,  but  shows  no  knowl- 
edge of  2nd  Corinthians.  The  correspond- 
ence is  not  only  invaluable  to  the  church  for 
its  paean  of  love  as  the  invincible,  abiding  gift 
of  the  Spirit  (1st  Cor.  xiii.)  and  its  sublime 


80     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

eulogy  of  the  "ministry  of  the  new  covenant," 
but  instructive  in  the  highest  degree  to  the 
historian.  Almost  every  aspect  of  Paul's 
work  as  missionary,  defender  of  his  own  inde- 
pendent apostleship  and  gospel,  guide  and 
instructor  of  developing  Gentile-Christian 
thought,  and  ardent  commissioner  for  peace 
with  the  apostolic  community  in  Syria,  is 
here  set  forth.  The  best  exposition  of  the 
history  is  the  documentary  material  itself,  and 
conversely. 

Romans  was  written  during  the  peaceful 
winter  at  Corinth  (55-56)  which  followed 
these  weeks  of  tormenting  anxiety  in  Mace- 
donia (Acts  xx.  1-3).  Paul  feels  that  he  has 
carried  the  gospel  to  the  very  shores  of  the 
Adriatic  (xv.  19).  He  is  on  the  point  of  going 
to  Jerusalem  with  his  great  'offering  of  the 
Gentiles,'  and  has  already  fixed  his  eye  on 
Rome  and  "Spain"!  Just  as  before  the  First 
Missionary  Journey  he  forestalled  opposition 
by  frankly  laying  his  gospel  before  the 
Pillars,  so  now  he  lays  it  before  the  church 
in  Rome,  but  most  delicately  and  tactfully, 
not  as  though  assuming  to  admonish  Chris- 
tians already  "filled  with  all  knowledge  and 
able  to  admonish  one  another"  (xv.  14),  but 
"that  I  with  you  may  be  comforted  in  you, 
each  of  us  by  the  other's  faith"  (i.  12).  Thus 
the  Epistle  is  an  eirenicon.  For  Rome  was 
even  more  than  Ephesus  had  been,  a  pre- 
occupied territory,  though  a  metropolis  of 
Paul's  mission-field.  Most  of  the  church  are 


PAUL  AS  MISSIONARY  81 

Paul's  sympathizers,  but  there  are  many  of 
the  'weak,'  who  may  easily  be  'offended.' 
The  letter  repeats  and  enlarges  the  argument 
of  Galatians  for  the  gospel  of  Grace,  carrying 
back  the  promise  to  Abraham  to  its  antece- 
dent in  the  fall  of  Adam,  whereby  all  mankind 
had  passed  under  the  domination  of  Sin  and 
Death.  The  function  of  the  Law  is  again 
made  clear  as  bringing  men  to  consciousness 
of  this  bondage,  till  it  is  done  away  by  (mys- 
tical) death  and  resurrection  with  Christ.  In 
the  adoption  wrought  by  the  Spirit  the  whole 
creation  even,  groaning  since  Adam's  time 
under  'vanity,'  is  liberated  in  the  manifesta- 
tion of  the  sons  of  God.  Jesus,  glorified  at 
the  right  hand  of  God,  is  the  firstfruits  of  the 
cosmic  redemption  (Rom.  i.-viii.).  Such  is 
Paul's  theory  of  'evolution.'  It  is  followed 
by  a  vindication  of  God  in  history.  Rom. 
ix.-xi.  exhibits  the  relation  of  Jew  and  Gentile 
in  the  process  of  the  redemption.  Israel  has 
for  the  time  being  been  hardened  that  the 
Gentiles  may  be  brought  in.  Ultimately 
their  very  jealousy  at  this  result  will  bring 
them  also  to  repentant  faith. 

Paul's  sublime  exposition  of  his  view  of 
cosmic  and  historic  redemption  is  followed 
(as  in  all  the  Epistles)  by  a  practical  exhorta- 
tion (chh.  xii.-xiv.),  the  keynote  of  which  is 
unity  through  mutual  forbearance  and  loving 
service.  It  repeats  the  Corinthian  figure  of 
the  members  in  the  body,  and  the  Galatian 
definition  of  the  'law  of  Christ.'  Special 


82     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

application  is  made  to  the  case  of  the  scrupu- 
lous who  make  distinctions  of  days  and  of 
meats.  Here,  however  (xiv.  1 — xv.  13),  there 
is  no  longer  need  to  resist  a  threatened  yoke. 
Only  tenderness  and  consideration  are  urged 
for  the  over-scrupulous  "brother  in  Christ." 
It  was  in  this  spirit  that  Paul  and  his  great 
company  of  delegates  from  the  churches  of 
the  Gentiles  went  up  to  Jerusalem  (Acts  xx. 
4— xxi.  17). 


CHAPTER  IV 

PAUL  AS   PRISONER  AND   CHURCH   FATHER 

THE  second  period  of  Paul's  literary  career 
begins  after  an  interval  of  several  years. 
This  interval  is  covered  indeed,  so  far  as  the 
great  events  of  the  Apostle's  personal  story 
are  concerned,  by  the  last  nine  chapters  of 
Acts,  but  exceedingly  obscure  as  respects  the 
fortunes  of  his  mission-field  and  the  occasion 
for  the  group  of  Epistles  which  come  to  us 
after  its  close.  It  is  barely  possible  that  a 
fragment  or  two  from  the  so-called  Pastoral 
Epistles  (1st  Timothy,  2nd  Timothy,  Titus), 
which  seem  to  be  compiled  long  after  Paul's 
death  on  the  basis  of  some  remnants  of  his 
correspondence,  may  have  been  written 
shortly  after  the  arrest  in  Jerusalem  and 
"first  defence."  In  2nd  Tim.  iv.  11-18  a 
journey  is  referred  to  from  Troas  by  way  of 
Ephesus  which  coincides  in  many  respects 
with  that  of  Acts  xx.  If  the  fragment  could 
be  taken  out  from  its  present  setting  it  might 
be  possible  to  identify  the  two ;  for  it  is  clear 
from  the  forecast  of  Acts  xx.  25,  38  that  Paul 
never  did  revisit  this  region.  The  grip  of 
Rome  upon  her  troublesome  prisoner  was 

83 


84     MAKING  OP  NEW  TESTAMENT 

not  relaxed  until  his  martyrdom,  probably 
some  considerable  time  before  the  "great 
multitude"  whom  Nero  condemned  after 
the  conflagration  of  64.  However,  until 
analysis  can  dissect  out  with  greater  definite- 
ness  the  genuine  elements  of  the  Pastoral 
Epistles,  they  cannot  be  used  to  throw  light 
upon  the  later  period  of  Paul's  career.  A 
historical  background  has  indeed  been  created 
to  meet  their  requirements — a  release  of 
Paul,  resumption  of  missionary  activities  on 
the  coasts  of  the  ^Egean,  renewed  imprison- 
ment in  Rome  and  ultimate  martyrdom.  But 
this  has  absolutely  no  warrant  outside  the 
Pastorals  themselves,  and  is  both  inconsist- 
ent with  Acts  and  open  to  criticism  intrinsi- 
cally. The  story  thus  created  of  a  release, 
second  visitation  of  the  Greek  churches,  and 
second  imprisonment  must,  therefore,  be 
regarded  as  fictitious,  and  the  Pastoral 
Epistles  in  their  present  form  as  products 
of  the  post-Pauline  age. 

It  is  our  task  to  trace  the  development 
>  among  the  Greek  churches  of  Christianity 
!  conceived  as  a  "revelation  of  God  in  Christ," 
alongside  of  its  development  in  the  '  apostolic ' 
church,  until  the  period  of  'catholic'  unity  and 
the  completed  canon.  Upon  this  develop- 
ment the  story  of  Paul's  personal  fortunes  in 
Acts  throws  but  little  light.  We  merely  see 
that  his  great  peace-making  visit  to  Jeru- 
salem was  suddenly  interrupted  by  his  arrest 
in  the  temple,  while  engaged  in  an  act  of  wor- 


PAUL  AS  PRISONER  85 

ship  undoubtedly  intended  by  him  to  demon- 
strate his  willingness  in  the  interest  of  unity 
to  "become  as  under  the  Law  to  them  that  are 
under  the  Law."  After  this  his  great  delega- 
tion from  the  Gentile  churches  must  have 
scattered  to  their  homes.  Paul  remained  a 
prisoner  for  two  years  in  Csesarea,  and  after 
an  adventurous  journey  covering  the  ensuing 
autumn  and  winter  (59-60),  spent  two  more 
years  in  less  rigid  confinement  at  Rome. 
We  need  no  hint  from  his  request  in  2nd  Tim. 
iv.  13  for  "books  and  parchments"  to  infer 
that  the  years  of  forced  seclusion  in  Csesarea 
were  marked  by  study  and  meditation;  but 
narrative  and  inference  together  convey  but 
little  of  what  we  mainly  desire  to  know: 
the  course  of  religious  development  in  the 
Pauline  churches,  as  a  background  for  the 
literature. 

On  the  other  hand  recent  research  into  re- 
ligious conditions  in  the  early  Empire  has  re- 
moved the  principal  objections  to  the  authen- 
ticity of  Philippians,  Philemon,  Colossians, 
and  even  Ephesians.  We  are  far  from  being 
compelled  to  come  down  to  the  time  of  the 
great  Gnostic  systems  of  the  second  century 
to  find  a  historical  situation  appropriate  to 
this  group  of  letters  purporting  to  be  written 
by  Paul  from  his  captivity.  Indeed  they 
exhibit  on  any  theory  of  their  origin  a  char- 
acteristic and  legitimate  development  of  the 
Pauline  gospel  of  sonship  by  the  Spirit  of 
Adoption  abolishing  the  dispensation  of 


86     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Law.  It  is  a  development  almost  inevitable 
in  a  conception  of  'the  gospel'  formed  on 
Greek  ideas  of  Redemption,  if  we  place  in 
opposition  to  it  a  certain  baser  type  of  super- 
stitious, mongrel  Judaism,  revealed  in  the 
Epistles  themselves,  repeatedly  referred  to  in 
Acts,  and  now  known  to  us  by  a  mass  of 
extraneous  documentary  material. 

The  new  disturbers  of  the  churches'  peace 
revealed  in  the  Epistles  of  the  Captivity  are 
still  of  Jewish  origin  and  tendency;  but  at 
least  in  the  region  of  Colossse  (in  the  Lycus 
Valley,  adjacent  to  southern  Galatia)  the 
issue  is  no  longer  that  between  Law  and 
Grace,  but  concerns  the  nature  and  extent  of 
the  Redemption.  The  trouble  still  comes 
from  a  superstitious  exaltation  of  the  Mosaic 
revelation;  but  those  whom  Paul  here  opposes 
do  not  "use  the  Law  lawfully,"  frankly  insist- 
ing on  its  permanent  obligation  as  the  will  of 
God  for  all  sons,  unaffected  by  the  Cross.  It 
is  now  admitted  to  be  an  "ordinance  of 
angels";  but  the  observance  of  it  is  inculcated 
because  man's  redemption  can  only  come 
through  conciliation  of  these  higher  beings. 
Mystical  union  with  superhuman  Powers  is 
to  be  promoted  by  its  observances.  This 
superstition  is  neither  purely  Jewish,  nor 
purely  Greek.  It  is  composite — Hellenistic. 
Judaism  is  imitated  in  the  superstitious 
reverence  for  the  Law;  but  the  conception 
of  Redemption  leaves  behind  every  thought 
of  national  particularism  and  is  openly 


PAUL  AS  PRISONER  87 

individualistic.  The  redemption  sought  is 
that  of  the  individual  soul  from  the  limitations 
of  humanity,  and  doubtless  the  name  of  Jesus 
played  an  important  role  in  the  emancipation, 
as  in  the  exorcisms  of  the  sons  of  Sceva  (Acts 
xix.  13  /.);  only  it  was  not  "above  every 
name." 

But  even  Jewish  apocalypses  such  as 
Enoch  and  Baruch  with  all  their  superstitious 
angelology  and  demonology  manage  somehow 
to  cling  to  the  ancient  Jewish  faith  in  the 
primacy  of  man,  and  Paul  in  like  manner 
upholds  against  the  theosophists  the  doctrine 
of  the  believer's  sonship  and  joint-heirship 
with  Christ.  In  fact  the  Adoption,  Redemp- 
tion and  Inheritance  accorded  in  the  gift  of 
the  Spirit  are  to  his  mind  gifts  so  great  and 
exalted  as  to  make  it  a  "gratuitous  self- 
humiliation"  to  pay  homage,  in  Mosaic  or 
other  ceremonial,  to  "angels,"  "principali- 
ties," or  "powers."  In  Christ  we  already 
have  a  foothold  in  the  heavenly  regions.  We 
were  foreordained  in  his  person  to  be  "heirs" 
"before  the  foundation  of  the  world."  His 
resurrection  and  ascension  "to  the  right  hand 
of  God"  participated  in  by  us  through  "the 
Spirit"  was  a  "triumph"  over  the  'Ele- 
ments' and  'Rulers.'  They  should  be  be- 
neath the  Christian's  feet  in  feeling,  as  they 
soon  will  be  in  reality. 

This  exalted  doctrine  of  Christ's  sonship  as 
compared  with  the  mere  temporary  authority 
of  "angels  and  principalities  and  powers," 


88     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

secures  to  the  Epistles  of  the  Captivity 
their  well-deserved  title  of  "Christological"; 
for  they  lay  the  foundation  for  all  later 
doctrines  of  the  Logos  or  Word.  It  is  well 
to  realize,  however,  that  the  doctrine  is  in 
origin  and  meaning  simply  a  vindication  of 
the  divine  dignity  of  manhood. 

An  idea  of  outward  conditions  at  the  time 
of  writing  may  be  gained  from  the  two 
Epistles  of  the  group  most  universally  ad- 
mitted to  be  genuine,  Philemon  and  Philip- 
pians.  Both  are  written  from  captivity, 
almost  certainly  in  Rome,  because  the  writer 
is  expecting,  if  released,  to  revisit  the  ^Egean 
coasts,  which  was  not  Paul's  expectation  in 
Caesarea.  But  there  is  a  wide  difference 
between  the  two  as  respects  the  circumstances 
presupposed.  The  tone  of  Philemon  is  hope- 
ful, sprightly,  even  jocose.  Paul  is  in  com- 
pany with  a  group  of  "fellow- workers" 
which  significantly  includes  "Mark,"  as  well 
as  two  companions  of  the  voyage  to  Rome, 
"Aristarchus"  of  Thessalonica,  and  "Luke" 
(Acts  xxvii.  2).  Epaphras,  his  "fellow-pris- 
oner," appears  in  Colossians  as  the  founder 
of  that  church  and  a  teacher  in  the  ad- 
jacent towns  of  Hierapolis  and  Laodicea.  He 
has  brought  to  Paul,  either  of  his  own  knowl- 
edge or  by  report  from  others,  disturbing  news 
of  the  inroads  of  the  heresy.  Onesimus, 
whose  case  occasions  the  letter  to  Philemon,  is 
an  escaped  slave  of  this  friend  and  convert  of 
Paul.  The  apostle  is  sending  back  the  slave 


PAUL  AS  PRISONER  89 

with  the  request  that  he  be  forgiven  and  manu- 
mitted. The  interrelation  of  the  persons 
mentioned  in  Philemon  and  Colossians  shows 
that  the  occasion  is  the  same.  Tychicus 
(cf.  Acts  xx.  3)  the  bearer  of  Colossians  (Col. 
iv.  7)  accompanies  Onesimus.  Ephesians  (if 
authentic)  belongs  to  the  same  group,  being 
also  carried  by  Tychicus  (Eph.  vi.  21).  It 
was  certainly  not  intended  for  Ephesus,  but 
for  some  church  or  churches  not  directly 
known  to  Paul  (i.  15;  iii.  2).  It  bears  much 
the  same  relation  to  Colossians  as  Romans  to 
Galatians.  In  spite  of  copious  evidences  of 
its  use  reaching  back  even  to  Clement  of 
Rome  (95)  the  genuineness  of  Ephesians  is 
more  seriously  questioned  than  that  of  any 
other  Pauline  letter  save  the  Pastorals.  In 
the  present  writer's  judgment  this  suspicion 
is  unfounded,  but  the  question  of  Pauline, 
semi-Pauline,  or  deutero-Pauline  is  immate^ 
rial  to  the  general  development. 

Philippians  is  of  later  date  than  Philemon 
and  its  companions.  Paul  has  been  in  cir- 
cumstances of  dire  physical  distress,  and  is 
comforting  his  correspondents  in  view  of  an 
immediately  impending  decision  of  his  case 
(ii.  23).  The  issue  will  be  life  or  death,  and 
Paul  has  no  earthly  (but  only  super-earthly) 
reasons  for  hoping  the  verdict  may  not  be 
adverse.  He  is  still  expecting,  if  released, 
to  revisit  the  ^Egean  coast  (ii.  24);  but  it  is 
only  smiling  through  his  tears  when  he  tells 
the  Philippians  that  their  need  of  him  is  so 


90     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

great  that  he  is  confident  he  will  be  spared  to 
them  (Phil.  i.  12-30).  Knowing  that  this 
journey  was  never  made,  we  can  but  infer 
that  the  fate  so  near  at  hand  in  Phil.  ii.  17 
came  actually  to  pass.  Paul's  blood  was 
"poured  out  a  libation,"  as  tradition  of  ex- 
treme antiquity  credibly  reports,  and  it  can 
hardly  have  been  after  a  release,  return  to 
Greece  and  second  arrest.  The  passage  in 
2nd  Tim.  iv.  5-8  which  repeats  the  figure  of  the 
libation  (Phil.  ii.  17),  treating  it  no  longer  as 
doubtful,  but  a  tragic  certainty,  will  have  been 
penned  (if  authentic)  but  a  few  weeks  at  most 
after  Philippians,  and  immediately  before 
the  end.  If  Philemon-Colossians-Ephesians 
be  dated  in  62,  Philippians,  with  the  possible 
fragments  in  2nd  Timothy,  may  be  dated  a 
few  months  later. 

Conditions  at  Philippi  appear  only  in  a 
favourable  light  from  this  latest  authentic 
epistle.  Paul  can  thank  God  upon  every 
remembrance  of  these  loyal  and  liberal 
Macedonian  friends.  In  Rome,  however,  he 
is  still  affected  by  Judaizing  opposition, 
though  his  attitude  toward  it  (in  Rome  at 
least)  shows  the  significant  difference  from 
Galatians  that  he  can  now  be  thankful  that 
Christ  is  preached  even  thus  (Phil.  i.  15-18). 
Moreover  there  is  a  difference  in  the  type  of 
legalism  represented;  for  while  in  his  warning 
to  the  Philippians  of  the  possible  coming  of 
the  heretics  Paul  is  moved  to  recall  his  own 
renunciation  of  legalistic  righteousness,  the 


PAUL  AS  PRISONER  91 

terms  of  opprobrium  applied  to  the  disturbers 
imply  an  immorality  and  assimilation  to 
heathenism  (Phil.  iii.  2-19;  cf.  Rom.  xvi. 
17-20)  which  could  not  justly  be  said  to  char- 
acterize the  legalism  of  the  synagogue. 

The  doctrinal  elements  of  Philippians  con- 
sist of  two  passages:  (1)  the  denunciation 
of  the  "concision"  (a  term  applied  to  the 
heathenized  renegade  Jew)  ending  with  a 
reminder  of  the  high  enthronement  of  our 
spiritual  Redeemer  (iii.  1-21);  (2)  the  defini- 
tion of  the  "mind,"  or  "disposition,"  of 
Christ  exhibited  in  his  self -abnegating  incar- 
nation, obedient  suffering,  and  supreme  ex- 
altation (ii.  5-11).  Both  passages  are  char- 
acteristic of  Paul's  gospel  in  general,  which  is 
always,  as  against  that  of  the  Judaizers,  the 
gospel  of  a  drama,  or  spectacle,  witnessed; 
not  a  gospel  of  teachings  heard.  It  is  a 
gospel  about  Jesus,  not  of  precepts  inculcated 
by  Jesus,  a  drama  of  redemption  for  all  man- 
kind out  of  servitude  into  sonship,  wherein 
the  cross  is  central.  Both  passages  are  also 
characteristic,  as  we  shall  see,  of  the  later 
period  of  Paul's  literary  activity;  for  even  in 
Philippians,  the  dominant  doctrinal  motive 
is  the  Redemption  to  which  Paul  is  looking 
forward,  and  this  is  now  conceived  even  more 
strongly  than  in  the  earlier  letters  in  terms 
of  personal  religion.  He  anticipates  "de- 
parting to  be  with  Christ"  (i.  23)  rather 
than  awaiting  Him  on  earth  (1st  Thess.  iv. 
17).  The  "goal"  toward  which  the  Christian 


92     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

"presses  on"  is  personal  immortality  through 
mystic  union  with  Christ  in  the  life  of  God 
(iii.  10-14).  This  too  is  a  real  doctrine  of 
the  Kingdom  of  God;  but  its  starting-point  is 
humanity's  triumph  over  its  enemies  'sin' 
and  'death/  not  Israel's  triumph  over  its 
oppressors.  Still  more  in  the  Colossian  group 
does  it  become  apparent  how  the  'far-off, 
divine  event'  is  a  unity  of  mankind  through 
the  Spirit  corresponding  to  the  Stoic  figure  of 
the  members  and  the  body  rather  than  the 
'Kingdom  of  David.' 

Again  the  opponents  in  Phil.  iii.  2,  18 /.  are 
not  mere  Pharisaic  legalists,  unable  to  see 
that  Law  and  Grace  are  mutually  exclusive 
systems,  and  nullifying  the  significance  of  the 
Cross  by  perpetuating  the  system  it  was 
intended  to  abolish.  If  we  may  explain  the 
difference  by  Colossians,  they  are  Jews  of 
heathenish  tendencies,  pretended  adherents 
of  the  gospel,  who  nullify  its  significance  by 
perpetuating  regard  for  the  Law;  only  the 
servility  deplored  is  not  servility  toward  God, 
but  toward  "angels"  (Col.  ii.  18). 

To  appreciate  the  enlargement  which  has 
come  to  Christianity  beyond  its  merely 
'apostolic'  form  through  the  independent 
development  of  the  Greek  churches  in  this 
second  period  we  must  realize  that  Paul's 
'gospel  of  the  uncircumcision '  differed  in 
respect  to  promise  as  well  as  law.  The  coming 
Kingdom  which  he  preached  was  something 
more  than  "the  kingdom  of  our  father 


PAUL  AS  PRISONER  93 

David"  extended  from  Jerusalem.  What  it 
really  was  becomes  fully  apparent  only  in 
the  'Christological  Epistles.'  But  we  must 
study  the  opposition  to  appreciate  how 
differently  the  idea  of  Redemption  had 
developed  on  Greek  soil. 

That  aspect  of  Judaism  which  was  most 
conspicuous  to  the  outsider  in  Paul's  day 
was  not  the  legalism  of  the  scribes  and  the 
Palestinian  synagogue,  perpetually  embalmed 
in  the  Talmud  and  orthodox  rabbinism  of 
to-day.  It  was  the  superstition  and  magic 
which  excite  the  contempt  of  satirists  like 
Horace,  Juvenal,  and  Martial,  and  call  forth 
descriptions  like  that  of  the  letter  of  Hadrian 
to  Servianus,  characterizing  the  Samaritans, 
Jews,  and  Christians  dwelling  in  Egypt  as  "all 
astrologers,  haruspices,  and  quacksalvers." 
It  is  this  type  of  Jew  who  is  most  widely 
known  in  the  contemporary  Hellenistic  world; 
whose  spells  and  incantations,  framed  in 
Old  Testament  language,  are  perpetuated  in 
the  leaden  incantation  rolls  and  magic  papyri 
of  the  Berlin  collection;  whose  portrait  is 
painted  in  the  Simon  Magus  of  Acts  viii.  14- 
24,  the  Elymas  the  sorcerer  of  Acts  xiii.  6-12, 
the  "strolling  Jews,  exorcists,"  and  the" seven 
sons  of  Sceva"  of  Acts  xix.  13-20.  A  Chris- 
tian writer  early  in  the  second  century  is  so 
impressed  with  this  characteristic  of  contem- 
porary Judaism  that  he  even  distinguishes 
as  the  third  type  of  religion,  besides  idol- 
atry and  Christianity,  "the  Jews,  who  fancy 


94     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

that  they  alone  know  God,  but  do  not,  wor- 
shipping angels  and  archangels,  the  moon  and 
the  month,"  and  seeks  to  prove  his  case 
by  citing  the  Old  Testament  festal  system. 
Indeed  this  idea  of  Judaism  is  the  predomi- 
nant one  among  the  second-century  apolo- 
gists. Jewish  "superstition"  is  a  notorious 
fact  of  the  time.  The  transcendentalizing  of 
Jewish  theology  after  the  Persian  period  had 
led  inevitably  to  an  elaborate  angelology  and 
demonology.  When  as  part  of  this  process  a 
more  and  more  supernatural  character  was 
attributed  to  the  Law  it  could  but  have  a  two- 
fold effect.  The  learned  and  orthodox  would 
treat  it  soberly  as  a  revelation  of  the  divine 
will.  This  is  the  legalistic  development  we 
see  in  the  Talmud  and  the  Palestinian  syn- 
agogue. The  ignorant  and  superstitious, 
especially  in  the  Greek-speaking  world,  would 
use  it  as  a  book  of  magic.  This  is  what  we 
see  among  many  Jewish  sects,  particularly 
in  Samaria,  Egypt,  and  among  the  Greek- 
speaking  Jews.  The  tendency  was  marked 
even  in  Galilee.  Jesus  Himself  stigmatizes 
the  morbid  craving  of  His  countrymen  for 
miracles  as  the  mark  of  an  "adulterous" 
generation,  because  the  power  invoked  was 
not  divine,  but  always  angelic,  or  even 
demonic.  Paul  alludes  to  the  same  trait 
(1st  Cor.  i.  22).  But  while  there  is  a  singu- 
lar absence  both  from  the  Pauline  and  the 
Johannine  writings  of  any  reference  to  exor- 
cism, the  typical  miracle  of  Synoptic  story,  it 


PAUL  AS  PRISONER  95 

has  been  justly  remarked  that  no  element  of 
Paul's  thought  has  been  so  little  affected  by 
that  of  Jesus  as  his  angelology  and  demon- 
ology.  Paul's  world-view,  like  that  of  the 
apocalypses  of  his  time,  is  a  perfect  phan- 
tasmagoria of  angels  and  demons,  "gods  many 
and  lords  many."  His  conception  of  the 
redemption  conflict  is  not  a  wrestling  against 
flesh  and  blood,  but  against  "world-rulers  of 
this  (lower  region  of)  darkness,"  against 
"archangels,"  "elements,"  "principalities," 
"powers."  The  one  thing  which  takes  away 
all  harmful  influence  from  this  credulity  (if 
we  must  apply  an  unfairly  modern  judgment 
to  an  ancient  writer)  is  his  doctrine  of  the 
Sonship  and  Lordship  of  Jesus,  with  whom 
the  redeemed  are  "joint-heirs"  of  the  entire 
creation  and  thus  superior  to  angels.  In 
this  respect  Paul  has  imbibed  the  mind  of 
Christ.  Jesus'  remedy  for  superstition  is  not 
scientific  but  religious.  It  does  not  deny 
the  popularly  assumed  relation  to  "spirits" 
good  or  evil,  but  affirms  a  direct  relation  to 
the  Infinite  Spirit,  which  reduces  all  angels 
and  demons  to  insignificance  save  as  "minis- 
ters." Paul's  world-view  starts  with  the 
creation  of  man  to  be  lord  and  heir  of  the 
world  (Gal.  iv.  1;  1st  Cor.  iii.  22;  cf.  Gen. 
i.  28).  The  "purpose  of  God,  which  he 
purposed  in  Christ  Jesus,  before  the  creation, 
unto  a  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  the  ages  " 
is  "to  our  glory."  It  would  be  frustrated  if 
the  "Second  Adam"  did  not  become  the 


96     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Heir,  in  whom  the  redeemed  creation  would 
find  the  goal  of  its  long  expectancy.  Paul 
has  a  cosmology  as  well  as  "Enoch."  He 
could  not  be  a  worthy  follower  of  Jesus — 
he  could  not  even  be  a  loyal  "  son  of  the  Law  " 
without  holding  to  the  accepted  doctrine  of 
the  Inheritance  intended  for  Messiah  and  His 
obedient  people.  It  did  not  make  him  less 
firm  in  this  conviction  when  as  a  Christian 
he  thought  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  of 
Jew  and  Gentile  united  in  His  kingdom; 
only  the  starting-point  is  not  the  subjection 
of  the  sons  of  Abraham  under  Gentiles,  but 
the  subjection  of  the  sons  of  Adam  under 
"world-rulers  of  this  darkness."  When  he 
combines  Ps.  viii.  and  Ps.  ex.  in  his  depiction 
of  the  reign  of  Christ  in  1st  Cor.  xv.  24-27,  it 
is  a  sure  indication  of  its  scope  as  Paul  under- 
stood it.  He  included  in  the  lordship  over 
creation,  and  the  subjection  of  all  "enemies" 
which  the  exalted  Christ  is  awaiting  "at  the 
right  hand  of  God,"  the  subjection  of  "angels, 
and  principalities,  and  powers  and  every 
name  that  is  named,  whether  of  beings  in 
heaven,  or  on  earth,  or  under  the  earth." 
Paul  pursues,  then,  the  method  of  the  apoca- 
lyptic writers  in  making  his  doctrine  of  Re- 
demption and  the  Kingdom  transcendental. 
By  making  it  cosmic  he  undermines  its 
Jewish  particularism.  He  avoids  the  super- 
stition by  holding  firmly  to  Jesus'  doctrine 
of  sonship  by  moral  affinity  with  God. 
In  the  Christological  Epistles  accordingly 


PAUL  AS  PRISONER  97 

it  is  apparent  that  the  Pauline  churches 
are  learning  to  think  of  the  coming  Kingdom 
in  a  widely  different  way  from  the  'apostolic.' 
The  Greek  doctrine  of  mystic  union,  not  the 
rabbinic  of  a  "share  in  the  world  to  come," 
is  the  basis.  In  due  time  we  shall  see  how 
difficult  the  process  of  reconciliation  became 
between  Greek  and  Semitic  thought  in 
this  field  also.  For  the  present  we  can  only 
note  how  in  the  great  theme  of  the  Unity  of 
the  Spirit  in  Eph.  iv.  1 — vi.  9  it  is  not  the 
'apostolic'  ideal  of  a  restoration  of  the 
kingdom  to  Israel  according  to  the  oath  sworn 
to  Abraham  (Luke  i.  68-75;  cf.  Acts  i.  6)  that 
dominates,  but  an  enlargement  of  the  figure 
of  the  body  and  members,  a  figure  commonly 
employed  by  Stoic  writers,  to  apply  to  the 
unity  of  the  church  in  Corinthians  and  Ro- 
mans. In  the  Epistles  of  the  Captivity  the 
doctrine  of  the  Kingdom  is  a  social  organism 
permeated  and  vitalized  by  Christ's  spirit  of 
service.  Personal  immortality  is  union  with 
the  life  of  God. 

In  view  of  the  notoriety  of  Ephesus  as  the 
very  centre  of  the  trade  in  magic  (so  much  so 
that  spells  and  incantations  were  technically 
known  as  "Ephesian  letters")  and  of  what 
Acts  tells  us  of  the  enormous  destruction  there 
of  "books  of  magic"  effected  by  Paul's 
preaching,  it  is  not  surprising  that  Asia  and 
Phrygia  should  appear  a  few  years  after  Paul's 
departure  as  the  hot-bed  of  a  "philosophy 
and  vain  deceit,  after  the  tradition  of  men, 


98     MAKING  OF  NEW,  TESTAMENT 

after  the  'elements'  of  the  world,  and  not 
after  Christ."  Acts  xx.  29  makes  Paul 
predict  the  heresy. 

Such  was  especially  the  case  at  Colossae, 
a  little  town  long  after  notorious  for  its  super- 
stition, where  Epaphras,  now  Paul's  fellow- 
prisoner,  had  founded  the  church.  Epaphras 
himself  at  the  time  of  Paul's  writing  was  in 
great  anxiety  both  for  this  church  and  for 
the  adjoining  churches  at  Hierapolis  and 
Laodicea.  Colossians  is  written  to  meet  this 
danger,  and  was  sent  by  the  same  bearers  as 
the  note  to  Philemon.  It  was  to  be  exchanged, 
after  being  read  at  Colossae,for  another  epistle 
sent  simultaneously  to  Laodicea.  Whether 
our  Ephesians  is  this  companion  letter  or 
only  a  deutero-Pauline  production  framed  on 
the  basis  of  some  genuine  letter  written  on 
this  occasion,  is  a  disputed  point  among 
critics.  In  Marcion's  canon  our  Ephesians 
was  called  "Laodiceans,"  and  in  our  own 
oldest  textual  authorities  it  has  no  address. 
We  may  assume  that  Ephesians  is  really  the 
companion  letter,  whose  original  address 
was  for  some  reason  cancelled; 1  or  that 
it  is  but  partially  from  Paul's  own  hand. 
Neither  view  will  materially  alter  our  con- 
ception of  his  teaching,  or  the  special  appli- 
cation of  it  to  the  circumstances  of  the 

1  Harnack  very  ingeniously  suggests  as  a  reason  the  ill- 
repute  later  incurred  by  Laodicea  (cf.  Rev.  iii.  15  /.);  com- 
paring the  chiselling  out  from  inscriptions  of  the  names  of 
unpopular  kings. 


PAUL  AS  PRISONER  99 

churches  of  the  Lycus  Valley.  The  important 
thing  to  observe  is  that  whereas  the  applica- 
tion in  Colossians  is  specific,  in  Ephesians  it  is 
systematic  and  general.  Colossians  wages  a 
direct  polemic  against  those  who  are  making 
believers  the  spoil  of  mere  'Elements'  by  in- 
troducing distinctions  of  "meats  and  drinks" 
(a  step  beyond  Mosaism),  with  observance 
of  "feast  days,  new  moons  and  sabbaths." 
In  Ephesians  we  have,  either  altogether 
at  first  hand,  or  to  a  greater  or  less  extent 
at  second,  a  general,  affirmative  presen- 
tation of  Paul's  doctrine  of  Lordship  in 
Christ.  It  has  only  incidental  allusion  to 
being  "deceived  with  empty  words"  (v.  6), 
and  a  warning  not  to  be  "children  tossed  to 
and  fro  and  carried  about  with  every  wind 
of  doctrine,  by  the  sleight  of  men  in  craftiness, 
after  the  wiles  of  error"  (iv.  14). 

Colossians  and  Ephesians  develop,  accord- 
ingly, that  (cosmological)  wisdom  of  God 
conveyed  to  Paul  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ  in 
a  "mystery,"  at  which  he  had  only  hinted  in 
1st  Cor.  ii.  1-16.  Paul's  gnosis,  or  insight, 
concerns  the  purpose  of  God  in  creation, 
hidden  even  from  the  (angelic)  "world- 
rulers,"  who  are  coming  to  nought.  The 
Spirit  of  Christ,  who  as  the  divine  Wisdom 
had  been  the  agent  of  creation,  is  given  to 
Christian  apostles  and  prophets.  It  affords 
them  in  the  revelation  of  this  "mystery" 
a  philosophy  both  of  creation  and  redemption 
which  puts  to  shame  mere  speculative  reason- 


100     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

ing.  The  Inheritance — the  things  God  pre- 
pared for  those  that  love  Him — consists  (as 
an  apocalyptic  writer  had  said)  of  "things 
which  eye  had  not  seen,  nor  ear  heard,  nor 
had  entered  into  the  heart  of  man  to  con- 
ceive." Paul  had  purposely  refrained  from 
unfolding  this  revealed  cosmology  and  philos- 
ophy of  history  to  the  Corinthians,  in  order  to 
avoid  just  the  evils  which  the  teaching  of 
Apollos  had  apparently  precipitated  at  the 
time  when  1st  Corinthians  was  written.  Still 
we  can  gain  from  this  very  epistle  (1st  Cor. 
viii.  6;  xv.  24-28)  a  partial  conception  of  his 
doctrine  of  Christ  as  the  beginning  and  end  of 
the  creation,  the  Wisdom  of  God  by  whom  and 
for  whom  as  Heir,  all  things  were  created. 
From  Romans  i.-viii.  and  ix.-xi.  we  can  easily 
see  that  as  Second  Adam  the  Messiah  was  to 
Paul  the  key  to  the  world's  development  and 
to  human  history;  for  since  the  triumph  of 
Satan  in  Eden  the  whole  creation  had 
waited,  groaning,  for  the  advent  of  the  sons. 
Galatians  makes  it  no  less  clear  that  he 
thought  of  the  Cross  as  the  epoch-making 
event,  which  marks  the  transition  from  the 
period  of  the  control  of  the  world  by  second- 
ary agencies,  to  the  rule  of  the  Son.  This 
"mystery"  is  simply  brought  out  and  de- 
veloped now  in  the  Epistles  of  the  Captivity. 
The  effort  and  prayer  is  that  the  readers  may 
"have  the  eyes  of  their  heart  enlightened," 
obtain  something  of  Paul's  own  insight  into 
the  riches  of  the  inheritance  they  are  to  share 


PAUL  AS 'PRISONER  101 

with  Christ,  something  of  Paul's  experience 
of  the  power  of  God  in  raising  Christ  from 
the  dead  and  setting  Him  on  the  throne  of 
glory.  If  they  but  realize  what  sonship  and 
heirship  with  Christ  implies — if  they  but  take 
in  the  fact  that  by  the  resurrection  Spirit 
within  them  they  have  already  in  a  sense 
shared  in  this  deliverance  and  this  exaltation, 
they  will  be  forearmed  against  all  the  vain 
deceits  of  theosophy.  It  is  in  fact  this 
resurrection  Spirit  which  brings  about  the 
unity  of  the  world  as  a  single  organism.  It 
extends  from  the  uppermost  height  to  the 
nethermost  abyss.  And  because  it  is  the 
Spirit  of  Jesus,  it  fills  all  it  touches  with  the 
disposition  to  loving  service.  It  affords  a 
new  ethics  and  a  new  politics  whose  keynote 
is  the  law  of  love  in  imitation  of  God  and 
Christ.  All  social  relations  are  recreated  by 
it,  beginning  with  family  and  church.  Hence 
we  must  think  of  our  redemption  as  like 
Israel's  from  the  bondage  and  darkness  of 
Egypt.  The  principalities  and  powers  of  this 
world,  spiritual  hosts  of  wickedness  in  the 
superterrestrial  regions,  are  vainly  endeavour- 
ing to  hold  back  the  people  of  God,  in  "this 
darkness." .  We  have  only  to  wait  like  Israel 
at  the  Passover  "with  our  loins  girt,  and  our 
feet  shod."  The  /Deliverer  will  soon  appear 
from  heaven,  clad  in  armour  of  salvation, 
as  in  the  ancient  passover  songs,  cleaving  the 
darkness  with  his  sword  of  light,  and  leading 
forth  the  captives. 


102     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

In  these  themes,  variously  interwoven  in 
Ephesians  and  Colossians,  it  is  difficult  to  say 
whether  it  is  the  note  of  unity  or  the  note  of 
freedom  which  predominates.  Certainly  we 
can  recognize  the  same  great  apostle  of  liberty 
who  in  the  epistles  of  the  earlier  period  had 
proved  the  power  and  value  of  his  religious 
insight  by  seizing  upon  the  doctrine  of  sonship 
as  the  essential  heart  of  the  gospel.  It  is  the 
same  genius  consciously  taught  of  God  who 
had  demanded  and  obtained  recognition  on 
equal  terms  for  His  gospel  of  Grace  and  son- 
ship,  a  gospel  given  by  revelation  of  God's 
Son  "in"  Him,  who  now  demands  that  the 
gift  of  the  Spirit  to  Jew  and  Gentile  be  rec- 
ognized as  calling  for  reconstruction  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  coming  Kingdom.  "He  that 
ascended  is  the  same  also  that  descended  to 
the  lowest  depths  that  he  might  fill  all  things." 
And  he  poured  out  the  "gifts"  in  order  that 
they  might  make  one  organism  of  the  new 
social  order,  a  new  creation  animated  and 
vitalized  by  Jesus'  spirit  of  loving  service. 

For  just  as  in  all  the  great  earlier  epistles 
the  note  of  longing  for  peace  and  unity  in  love 
rings  ever  stronger  and  clearer  above  the 
strife,  so  in  the  later  epistles,  the  note  of 
triumph  in  liberty  has  a  deep  under-chord  of 
thanksgiving  for  reconciliation  achieved.  The 
great  paean  of  reverent  adoration  for  the  glory 
of  God's  grace  in  Eph.  i.  3-14,  is  a  thanks- 
giving for  the  union  of  Jew  and  Gentile  in 
one  common  redemption.  The  retrospect 


PAUL  AS  PRISONER  103 

of  the  work  of  God  in  ii.  11-21  is  the  proc- 
lamation of  "peace  to  him  that  was  far  off 
and  peace  to  him  that  was  nigh."  It  is 
described  as  the  building  of  Jew  and  Gentile 
into  one  living  temple,  upon  the  foundation 
of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Christ  Jesus 
Himself  being  the  chief  corner-stone.  The 
exhortation  to  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  iv. 
1 — vi.  9  rests  upon  an  exultant  application  of 
the  figure  of  the  "one  new  man"  in  whose 
body  all  are  members,  that  would  be  incon- 
ceivable if  at  the  time  of  writing  the  church 
which  had  received  the  gifts  from  the  as- 
cended Lord  was  not  indeed  one  body,  but 
two  bodies  standing  apart  in  mutual  distrust 
and  jealousy. 

In  fact  we  may  say  not  of  Ephesians  only, 
but  of  Colossians  likewise,  and  indeed  of  all 
the  group :  Their  keynote  is  not  so  much  the 
conquest  of  all  things  by  Christ  as  "the  recon- 
ciliation of  all  things  in  Christ,  whether  things 
upon  the  earth,  or  things  in  the  heavens" 
(Col.  i.  20).  It  is  not  unreasonable  to  infer 
from  such  undertones  as  these  that  the  prayer 
was  answered  in  which  Paul  when  he  set 
out  from  Corinth  had  besought  the  Roman 
church  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  by  the 
love  of  the  Spirit  to  strive  together  with  Him, 
that  his  ministration  which  he  had  for  Jeru- 
salem might  be  acceptable  to  the  saints,  that 
so  his  coming  to  them  in  Rome  through  the 
will  of  God  might  be  in  joy,  and  that  together 
with  them  he  might  find  rest. 


CHAPTER  V 

PSEUDO-APOSTOLIC  EPISTLES 

WE  cannot  wonder  that  an  epoch  of  the 
church's  history  which  followed  upon  the 
martyrdom  in  rapid  succession  of  all  its 
remaining  great  leaders,  should  at  first  be 
poor  in  literary  products.  James  the  Lord's 
brother  was  stoned  to  death  by  a  mob  in 
Jerusalem  in  the  year  61-62.  His  namesake, 
brother  of  John,  had  been  beheaded  early  in 
44  by  Herod  Agrippa  I.  Among  the  "others " 
who,  as  Josephus  informs  us,  perished  along 
with  James  in  61,  we  may,  perhaps,  reckon 
John,  who  stands  beside  him  in  Paul's  list 
of  the  Pillars.  This  John,  son  of  Zebedee, 
brother  of  the  other  James,  is  reckoned  a 
martyr  in  the  same  sense  as  his  brother  in 
the  earliest  gospels.  The  brothers  are  assured 
that  they  shall  drink  the  same  cup  of  suffering 
as  the  Lord,  though  they  may  not  claim  in 
return  pre-eminent  seats  in  glory  (Mark  x. 
39  /.) .  John  did  not  suffer  with  his  brother 
James  in  44,  because  he  is  present  at  the 
conference  in  46-47  (Gal.  ii.  9) ;  but  one  of  the 
traditions  of  the  Jerusalem  elders  reported  by 
Papias  declared  that  he  was  "killed  by  the 

104 


PSEUDO-APOSTOLIC  EPISTLES      105 

Jews"  in  fulfilment  of  the  Lord's  prediction, 
"jid  this  early  tradition  must  be  accepted  in 
spite  of  its  conflict  with  one  which  gradually 
superseded  it  after  John  came  to  be  regarded 
as  author  of  Revelation  and  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel. The  statement  that  he  was  killed  "to- 
gether with  James  his  brother"  may  be  due 
merely  to  the  (not  infrequent)  confusion  of 
the  two  Jameses. 

Paul's  decapitation  in  Rome  occurred  not 
more  than  a  year  or  two  later,  and  was  fol- 
lowed there  in  64,  according  to  very  ancient 
and  trustworthy  tradition,  by  the  martyrdom 
of  Peter.  The  death  of  all  the  principal 
leaders  explains  why  the  Jerusalem  church 
when  it  reassembled  after  the  overthrow  of 
city  and  temple  in  the  year  70,  put  forward  no 
more  prominent  candidates  for  the  leadership 
than  a  certain  Symeon,  son  of  Clopas,  one  of 
the  group  of  'relatives  of  the  Lord*  who 
are  traceable  "until  the  time  of  Trajan," 
and  a  certain  unknown  Thebuthis.  Symeon, 
according  to  Eusebius,  who  takes  his  account 
from  Hegesippus  (165),  was  the  representa- 
tive of  "those  of  the  apostles  and  disciples 
of  the  Lord  that  were  still  living,  together  with 
the  Lord's  relatives."  Thebuthis  is  said  to 
have  sprung  from  one  of  the  heretical  Jewish 
sects  and  to  have  organized  a  schism  in  conse- 
quence of  his  disappointment.  All  we  can 
be  sure  of  is  that  Jerusalem  'down  to  the 
time  of  Trajan'  continued  to  regard  itself 
is  the  seat  of  apostolic  authority  and  arbiter 


106      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

of  orthodoxy,  on  account  of  its  succession  of 
disciples  and  relatives  of  the  Lord.  Among 
the  latter  the  leading,  if  not  the  only,  repre- 
sentatives of  the  seed  of  David,  when  "  search 
was  made"  in  the  persecution  under  Domitian 
(81-95),  were  two  grandsons  of  Jude,  the 
Lord's  brother.  Jude  himself,  then,  was  no 
longer  living.  Luke  (c.  100),  Papias  (145), 
and  Hegesippus  (165)  successively  exhibit  the 
growing  authority  of  the  "tradition  handed 
down,"  especially  that  of  "the  apostles  and 
elders  in  Jerusalem."  But  what  Papias 
records  of  the  traditions  of  these  "elders" 
does  not  rise  above  the  level  of  Jewish  mid- 
rash,  and  the  epistles  which  bear  the  names  of 
James  and  Jude  have  little  intrinsic  value, 
and  enjoyed  from  the  beginning  only  the  most 
meagre  acceptance.  At  Rome  tradition  at- 
taches to  the  name  of  Peter,  but  besides  the 
bare  fact  of  his  martyrdom  "at  the  same  time 
with  Paul"  (64-65)  it  has  little  of  value  to 
relate.  We  cannot  safely  go  beyond  the 
tradition  reported  by  Porphyry  that  Peter 
fed  the  lambs  (at  Rome)  for  a  few  months 
before  his  martyrdom,  and  that  reported  by 
Papias  that  Mark,  who  had  been  Peter's 
assistant,  compiled  there  the  Gospel  which 
bears  his  name,  basing  it  upon  his  recollec- 
tions of  Peter's  preaching.  Of  this  vitally 
important  work  (c.  A.D.  75)  we  must  speak  in 
another  connection.  We  are  concerned  at 
present  with  writings  which  directly  reflect 
the  development  of  Christian  life  and  doc- 


PSEUDO-APOSTOLIC  EPISTLES      107 

trine  in  this  sub-apostolic  period,  especially 
that  in  the  Pauline  mission-field. 

Except  for  the  appearance  of  the  Gospel 
of  Mark  at  Rome  (c.  75)  there  remains  noth- 
ing to  break  the  silence  and  darkness  of 
twenty  years  after  the  deaths  of  James  and 
Peter  and  Paul.  The  writings  which  finally 
did  appear  were  almost  inevitably  anonymous 
or  pseudepigraphic,  because  apostolic  author- 
ity stood  so  high  that  no  other  could  secure 
circulation.  Hebrews  (c.  85)  has  an  epistolary 
attachment  at  the  close  of  its  "exhortation," 
but  either  never  had  an  address  or  superscrip- 
tion, or  else  has  been  deprived  of  it.  All  the 
Synoptic  writings  are  anonymous,  though 
Luke- Acts  (c.  100)  is  dedicated  to  a  literary 
patron.  Revelation  (c.  95)  is  boldly  asserted 
to  be  the  work  of  the  Apostle  John  in  the  pref- 
atory chapters  and  the  epilogue  (i.  2,  4,  9; 
xxii.  8).  But  the  body  of  the  work,  though 
of  Palestinian  origin,  has  a  totally  different 
standpoint,  and  claims  the  authority  of  a 
prophet,  not  that  of  an  apostle.  Similarly  the 
Fourth  gospel  when  finally  published  re- 
ceived an  appendix  (ch.  xxi.)  which  cautiously 
suggests  the  Apostle  John  as  its  author;  but 
the  three  Epistles  by  the  same  writer  are 
anonymous.  The  homily  called  James  (90— 
100)  has  a  superscription  which  superficially 
connects  it  with  the  chief  authority  in  Jeru- 
salem, and  the  Epistle  of  Jude  prefixes  to  it- 
self the  name  which  stood  next  in  the  same 
class.  But  even  in  antiquity  they  had  a  pre- 


108      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

carious  standing,  and  neither  is  a  real  letter. 
Finally  there  are  the  Epistles  to  Timothy  and 
Titus,  purporting  to  be  written  by  Paul,  and 
a  whole  series  of  every  kind,  epistles,  gospel, 
acts,  and  apocalypse,  written  in  the  name  of 
Peter,  of  which  only  two  secured  final  adop- 
tion into  the  canon.  Of  all  these  only  1st 
Peter  and  the  so-called  Pastoral  Epistles  (1st 
and  2nd  Timothy  and  Titus)  have  some  claim 
to  be  considered  genuine;  for  1st  Peter  is 
certainly  of  early  origin  (c.  85),  and  was  un- 
disputed in  antiquity;  while  the  Pastorals, 
though  rejected  by  Marcion,  and  as  a  whole 
of  late  date  (90-110),  are  made  up  on  the 
basis  of  some  authentic  Pauline  material. 

The  post-apostolic  epistles  may  be  grouped 
into  two  classes,  according  as  they  are  pre- 
dominantly occasioned  (a)  by  internal  dan- 
gers of  heresy  and  moral  laxity;  or  (6) 
by  the  external  peril  of  persecution.  To 
the  former  (a)  must  be  reckoned  (1)  the 
so-called  Pastoral  Epistles;  (2)  Jude;  (3)  2nd 
Peter.  All  these  concern  themselves  out- 
spokenly with  a  type  of  false  doctrine  which 
has  certain  more  or  less  definite  traits, 
and  is  tending  toward  the  Gnostic  heresies  of 
the  second  century,  if  not  yet  clearly  identi- 
fiable with  them.  But  the  inspired  genius  of 
Paul  is  wanting.  The  age  is  not  creative,  but 
conservative.  Its  writers  are  ecclesiastics 
and  church  teachers,  not  apostles  and  proph- 
ets. Their  distinctive  note  is  appeal  to 
apostolic  authority.  Whether  the  name  by 


PSEUDO-APOSTOLIC  EPISTLES      109 

which  they  cover  their  own  insignificance  be 
that  of  "Paul,"  or  "Jude  the  brother  (son?) 
of  James,"  or  "Peter,"  they  have  little  or  no 
independent  message.  They  hark  back  to 
the  "pattern  of  sound  words"  the  "deposit," 
"the  faith  once  for  all  delivered  to  the  saints," 
"the  words  spoken  before  by  the  holy 
prophets,  and  the  commandments  of  the 
Lord  and  Saviour  through  your  apostles,"  in 
particular  the  "wisdom  of  our  beloved 
brother  Paul"  who  (in  the  Pastoral  Epistles) 
had  predicted  the  heresy,  and  "in  all  his 
epistles"  had  spoken  of  the  resurrection  and 
judgment.  Second  Peter,  which  refers  in  the 
passage  just  quoted  (2nd  Pet.  iii.  2,  15  /.)  to 
the  Pauline  Epistles  alongside  "the  other 
Scriptures"  belongs  to  a  very  late  period  (c. 
150).  In  fact  this  Epistle,  now  almost  uni- 
versally recognized  to  be  pseudonymous, 
merely  reedits  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  supplying 
a  prefix  (ch.  i.)  and  an  appendix  (ch.  iii.)  to 
make  special  application  of  its  denunciations 
to  the  case  of  the  false  teachers  who  were 
"denying  the  (bodily)  resurrection  and  the 
judgment."  Neither  plagiarism  nor  pseudo- 
nymity  were  recognized  offences  at  the  time; 
so  that  we  bring  no  indictment  against  the 
author  of  2nd  Peter,  were  he  the  Apostle  or 
not.  Still  our  conception  of  the  Galilean 
fisherman  will  be  higher  without  this  example 
of  pulpit  rhetoric  than  with  it. 

Of  the  nature  of  the  heresies  controverted 
in  this  series  of  writings  we  must  speak  later. 


110      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

As  to  the  region  whence  they  originate  some- 
thing can  be  made  out  already.  Not  indeed 
from  2nd  Peter,  which  is  of  too  late  date  to  be 
of  service.  True  the  readers  addressed  are 
assumed  to  be  the  same  as  in  the  first  epistle, 
in  other  words  the  Pauline  mission-field  of 
Asia  Minor  (1st  Pet.  i.  1),  and  there  is  reason 
to  think  "Asia"  was  the  region  first  affected. 
"Ephesus"  and  "Asia"  are  in  fact  the  re- 
gions affected  in  1st  and  2nd  Timothy  (1st 
Tim.  i.  3/.;  2nd  Tim.  i.  15).  Moreover  it  is 
in  this  same  region  that  we  find  Polycarp 
(110-117)  adverting  to  those  who  "pervert 
the  sayings  of  the  Lord  to  their  own  lusts,  and 
deny  the  resurrection  and  judgment."  To 
the  same  region  and  the  same  period  belong 
the  letters  of  "the  Spirit"  in  Rev.  i.-iii.  (c.  95) 
with  their  denunciation  of  the  Balaamite  and 
Nicolaitan  heretics,  and  still  further  lst-3rd 
John  and  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  which  are 
also  polemics  against  a  Gnostic  heresy  (Doket- 
ism)  tending  to  moral  laxity.  It  is  doubtful, 
however,  in  view  of  the  general  address  (2nd 
Pet.  i.  1),  whether  the  author  of  2nd  Peter 
really  has  a  definite  circle  in  mind,  and  does 
not  rather  in  iii.  1  mistakenly  treat  1st  Peter 
as  a  general  epistle.  Denial  of  the  resurrec- 
tion and  judgment  was  not  limited  to  one 
locality  or  period.  Hegesippus  regards  it  as 
a  pre-Christian  heresy  combated  already  by 
James.  Equally  precarious  would  be  the 
assumption  that  Jude,  with  its  similar  general 
address,  was  necessarily  intended  for  Asia 


PSEUDO-APOSTOLIC  EPISTLES      111 

Minor.  The  false  teachers  resemble  those  we 
know  of  there,  and  the  denunciation  is  incor- 
porated by  2nd  Peter,  but  'Canutes'  and 
'Balaamites'  were  not  confined  to  the  regions 
of  1st  John  and  Revelation,  and  Jude  might 
have  almost  any  date  between  90  and  120. 
The  most  that  can  be  said  is  that  before  the 
death  of  Paul  the  last  view  we  obtain  of  his 
mission-field  shows  it  exposed,  especially  in 
the  region  of  Ephesus,  to  a  rising  flood  of 
superstition  and  false  doctrine,  while  docu- 
ments that  can  be  dated  with  some  definite- 
ness  in  95-117,  such  as  Revelation,  the  Johan- 
nine  and  Ignatian  Epistles,  and  the  letter  of 
Polycarp,  show  a  great  advance  of  heretical 
teaching  in  the  same  region.  The  later 
heresy  corresponds  in  several  respects  to  that 
combated  in  the  Pastorals,  Jude  and  2nd 
Peter,  but  becomes  at  last  more  distinctly 
definable  as  Doketism,  whose  most  obnoxious 
form  comes  to  be  denial  of  the  (bodily) 
resurrection  and  judgment.  The  three  Pas- 
toral Epistles,  Jude  and  2nd  Peter,  may, 
therefore,  be  taken  as  probably  reflecting  the 
growing  internal  danger  confronted  by  the 
churches  of  Asia  (if  not  by  all  the  churches) 
in  the  sub-apostolic  age. 

Unfortunately,  literary  relations  sometimes 
interfere  with  historical  classification,  and  we 
are,  therefore,  compelled  to  defer  treatment 
of  lst-3rd  John  and  the  Epistles  of  "the 
Spirit"  to  the  churches  (Rev.  i.  3),  which 
really  belong  to  our  present  group  (a)  of 


112      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

writings  against  the  heresies  of  (proconsular) 
Asia.  Their  relation  to  the  special  canon 
of  Ephesus,  whose  writings  are  all  ascribed 
to  John,  makes  it  convenient  to  consider 
them  in  another  connection.  The  reader 
should  bear  in  mind,  however,  that  the 
group  extends  continuously  down  to  the 
Epistles  of  Ignatius  and  centres  upon  Ephesus, 
where,  according  to  Acts  xx.  29/.,  the  "griev- 
ous wolves"  were  to  enter  in  after  Paul's 
departing. 

Similar  considerations  affect  the  grouping 
of  the  Epistle  of  James,  which  almost  demands 
a  class  by  itself.  It  might  be  called  anti- 
heretical,  except  that  its  nature  is  the  reverse 
of  controversial,  and  its  author  seems  to  have 
no  direct  contact  with  the  false  teachers. 
In  a  remote  and  general  way  he  deplores  the 
vain  talk  and  disputation  which  go  hand  in 
hand  with  a  relaxation  of  the  practical  Chris- 
tian virtues.  On  the  whole  it  seems  more 
correct  to  class  James  with  1st  Peter  and 
Hebrews,  particularly  as  it  displays  direct 
literary  dependence  on  the  former,  if  not  on 
both. 

Our  second  group  (6)  consists  of  writings 
not  primarily  concerned  with  heresy.  Its  first 
and  best  example  speaks  in  the  name  of  Peter 
as  representative  of  "apostolic"  Christianity 
at  Rome.  But  the  doctrine,  and  even  the 
phraseology  and  illustrations  of  1st  Peter  are 
largely  borrowed  from  the  greater  Epistles  of 
Paul,  particularly  Romans  and  Ephesians. 


PSEUDO-APOSTOLIC  EPISTLES      113 

Nothing  even  remotely  suggests  an  author 
who  had  enjoyed  personal  relations  with 
Jesus,  or  could  relate  His  wonderful  words  and 
deeds.  On  the  contrary  the  doctrine  is 
Paul's  gospel  minus  the  sting  of  the  abolition 
of  the  Law.  In  view  of  the  known  internal 
conditions  of  the  churches  to  which  1st  Peter 
is  addressed  in  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia, 
Asia,  and  Bithynia  it  is  remarkable  how  com- 
pletely the  subject  of  heresy  or  false  doctrine 
is  ignored.  Their  adversary  the  devil  is  not  at 
present  taking  the  form  of  a  seducing  serpent 
(2nd  Cor.  xi.  3),  but  of  a  "roaring  lion" 
openly  destroying  and  devouring  (1st  Pet. 
v.  8/.),  and  the  same  sufferings  the  Asiatics 
are  called  upon  to  endure  are  being  inflicted 
upon  their  brethren  throughout  the  world.  A 
systematic,  universal  "fiery  persecution"  is 
going  on,  which  has  come  almost  as  a  surprise 
(iv.  12)  and  may  compel  any  believer,  after 
having  made  "defence"  before  the  magis- 
trate of  "the  hope  that  is  in  him,"  to  "suffer 
as  a  Christian"  and  to  "glorify  God  in  this 
name."  The  author  exhorts  to  irreproach- 
able conduct  as  citizens,  and  kindness  and 
good  order  in  the  brotherhood.  If  such  blame- 
lessness  of  living  be  combined  with  patient 
endurance  of  the  unjust  punishment,  Chris- 
tians who  still  must  sanctify  in  their  hearts 
Christ  (and  not  the  Emperor)  as  Lord,  will 
ultimately  be  left  unharmed. 

Superior  as  is  this  noble  exhortation  to 
patient  endurance  of  suffering  in  the  meek- 


114      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

ness  of  Christ  to  the  controversial  rhetoric  of 
2nd  Peter,  immeasurably  better  as  is  its 
attestation  in  ancient  and  modern  times,  even 
the  most  conservative  modern  critics  are 
compelled  to  regard  it  as  at  least  semi-pseu- 
donymous. It  might  be  just  possible  to 
carry  back  the  conditions  of  persecution 
presupposed  to  the  time  of  Nero.  But  if  it  be 
Peter  writing  from  Rome  after  the  recent 
martyrdoms  of  James  and  Paul,  why  is  there 
no  allusion  to  either?  Again,  we  might  pos- 
sibly prolong  the  life  of  Peter  (against  all 
probability)  down  to  the  beginning  of  the 
reign  of  Domitian  (81-95).  In  that  case  the 
absence  of  any  allusion  to  the  great  events  of 
recent  occurrence  in  Palestine  would  be  al- 
most equally  hard  to  explain.  Moreover,  with 
any  dating  the  real  author  remains  a  literary 
man,  a  Paulinist,  a  Grecian  Jew,  and  the 
share  attributable  to  Peter  personally  becomes 
most  shadowy.  The  simpler,  and  (as  the 
present  writer  has  come  to  believe)  the  more 
probable  view  is  that  1st  Peter,  like  the  later 
writings  which  assumed  the  name,  is  wholly 
pseudonymous.  If,  however,  it  appeared  (as 
we  are  persuaded)  some  twenty  years  after 
the  Apostle's  death,  among  those  perfectly 
aware  of  the  fact,  assuming  no  other  disguise, 
but  frankly  dealing  with  the  existing  situa- 
tion, this  is  a  kind  of  pseudonymity  which 
should  be  classed  with  literary  fictions  and 
conventions  which  are  harmless  because  (at 
the  time)  perfectly  transparent.  Letters 


PSEUDO-APOSTOLIC  EPISTLES      115 

Written  under  fictitious  names  were  in  fact  a 
very  common  literary  device  of  the  age. 

At  all  events  the  Apostle  appears  as  an  old 
man  (v.  1)  writing  from  "Babylon" — rightly 
taken  by  the  fathers  to  be  a  cryptogram  for 
Rome.  Salutations  are  conveyed  from  Mark, 
his  "son"  (cf.  Philem.  i.  10).  The  bearer 
(writer?)  is  represented  to  be  Silvanus  (like 
Mark  a  companion  of  Paul  with  relations  to 
Jerusalem  as  well),  and  Silvanus  is  com- 
mended as  a  "trustworthy"  disciple.  The 
author  states  it  as  his  object  to  "exhort  and 
testify  that  this  is  the  true  grace  of  God 
wherein  ye  stand." 

Ignorant  as  we  are  of  its  author's  name  it 
is  fortunate  for  our  study  of  the  times  that  the 
date  of  1st  Peter  is  fairly  determinable  by  the 
convergence  of  external  and  internal  evidence. 
Echoes  from  it  appear  already  in  Clement  of 
Rome  (95)  as  well  as  in  James  and  Hermas. 
We  must  think  of  it,  then,  as  a  hand  of  cor- 
dial encouragement  extended  by  a  represent- 
ative of  the  Petro-Pauline  church  at  Rome, 
soon  after  the  outbreak  of  the  persecution  of 
Domitian  (c.  90),  to  the  still  independent  but 
suffering  churches  of  Asia  Minor.  If  we 
remember  that  it  undertakes  to  endorse  the 
doctrine  of  one  third  of  contemporary  Chris- 
tendom, and  (in  substance)  offers  a  'letter  of 
commendation '  to  Silvanus,  it  will  be  obvious 
that  no  name  of  less  authority  than  that  of 
Peter  could  have  served.  As  Zahn  has  well 
remarked:  "The  significant  thing  ...  is 


116      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

that  it  is  Peter,  the  most  distinguished  apos- 
tle of  the  circumcision  (Gal.  ii.  7)  who  bears 
witness  to  the  genuineness  of  their  state  of 
grace." 

We  must  place  alongside  of  1st  Peter  one 
other  epistle  in  which  the  motive  of  exhorta- 
tion to  endurance  of  persecution  without 
relaxation  of  the  moral  standard  is  prominent, 
though  not  exclusive,  and  a  second,  wherein 
it  appears  only  in  a  faint  echo  of  "trials," 
which  turn  out,  however,  as  the  reader  pro- 
ceeds, to  be  only  "temptations,"  while  the 
real  occasion  of  writing  is  plain — moral  relaxa- 
tion without  either  heresy  or  persecution  to 
excuse  it.  The  two  writings  in  question  are 
the  anonymous  "exhortation"  handed  down 
under  the  title  "To  the  Hebrews,"  and  the 
so-called  Epistle  (in  reality  a  homily)  of 
James.  Hebrews  begins  as  an  exposition  of 
the  two  psalms  Paul  had  quoted  in  his  refer- 
ence in  1st  Cor.  xv.  24-28  to  the  exaltation  of 
Jesus  (Pss.  viii.  and  ex.)  proving  Him  to  be 
the  Son,  who,  after  temporary  subordination 
to  the  angels,  has  been  exalted  above  them  to 
the  place  of  supreme  dominion.  Christ  has 
thus  effected  a  greater  redemption  than  Moses 
and  Joshua.  He  is  also  a  "high-priest  after 
the  order  of  Melchizedek "  according  to  Ps. 
ex. ;  so  that  the  Aaronic  priesthood  and  cere- 
monial are  surpassed  as  well  as  the  Mosaic 
legislation,  by  the  sacrifice  of  Calvary  and 
intercession  of  the  risen  Redeemer.  It  is  no 
wonder  that  in  the  period  of  debate  against 


PSEUDO-APOSTOLIC  EPISTLES     117 

Judaism  the  canon-makers  gave  to  this  anony- 
mous sermon  a  title  which  ranks  it  first  in  the 
class  of  subsequent  controversial  pamphlets 
"against  the  Jews."  Controversy,  however, 
is  subordinate  in  the  writer's  purpose  to 
edification.  He  is  not  unconscious  of  the 
dangers  of  that  superstitious  'worship  of  the 
angels,'  against  which  Paul's  Asian  epistles 
had  been  directed,  but  his  demonstration  of 
the  superiority  of  the  institutions  and  aims  of 
Christianity  to  those  of  Judaism  has  the  prac- 
tical object  of  reinforcing  the  courage  and 
"faith"  of  his  readers  under  pressure  of  per- 
secution. His  argument  culminates  in  an  in- 
spiring list  of  Scriptural  heroes  and  martyrs, 
leading  up  as  a  climax  to  "Jesus  the  author 
and  perfecter  of  our  faith."  As  Jesus  endured, 
looking  beyond  the  shame  and  suffering  of  the 
cross  to  the  joy  of  His  reward,  so  should  the 
readers  "endure  their  chastening."  Apostacy 
will  meet  a  fearful  doom  in  the  judgment  of 
fire.  To  this  homily  (Heb.  i.-xii.)  is  appended 
a  concluding  chapter  (probably  by  the  author 
himself)  which  transforms  it  into  a  letter. 
The  author  is  a  church-teacher  of  the  second 
generation,  as  he  frankly  confesses  himself 
(ii.  3) ;  a  disciple  of  Paul,  to  judge  by  his  use 
of  Paul's  doctrine  and  some  of  his  epistles, 
especially  Romans.  To  judge  by  his  rhetori- 
cal style  and  his  Alexandrian  ideas  and  mode 
of  thought,  he  is  the  sort  of  teacher  Apollos 
will  have  been.  Just  at  present  he  is  sepa- 
rated from  his  flock  (xiii.  19) .  Where  they  are 


118      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

we  can  only  infer  from  xiii.  24,  which  conveys 
salutations  from  those  in  the  writer's  neigh- 
bourhood who  are  "from  Italy."  He  himself 
is  probably  among  the  Pauline  churches,  for 
he  sends  news  of  Timothy  (xiii.  23)  and  hopes 
to  come  soon  in  company  with  him.  Ephesus, 
where  Apollos  was  at  last  accounts,  may 
possibly  be  the  place  of  writing.  Hebrews 
would  seem  then  to  be  written  to  Rome, 
long  after  the  first  "great  fight  of  afflictions" 
(the  Neronian  outbreak  of  64)  and  when  the 
danger  of  "fainting  under  the  chastening" 
of  a  second  persecution  (that  of  Domitian  c. 
90)  was  imminent.  Such  slight  indications  as 
we  have  of  a  literary  relation  between  He- 
brews and  1st  Peter  suggest  the  priority  of 
Hebrews,  but  the  date  and  occasion  must  be 
nearly  the  same. 

"James"  is  also  a  homily  exhorting  to 
patient  endurance,  but  there  is  nothing  to 
suggest  its  having  ever  been  sent  anywhere  as 
a  letter,  save  the  brief  superscription  written 
in  imitation  of  1st  Pet.  i.  1.  "James  .  .  . 
to  the  twelve  tribes  of  the  Dispersion." 
Imagine  the  mode  of  delivery!  Nor  is  it 
called  forth  by  any  special  emergency.  There 
is  an  allusion  to  false  doctrine.  It  is  the 
heresy  (!)  of  "justification  by  faith  apart 
from  works."  But  the  writer  is  no  more  con- 
scious of  contradicting  Paul  than  is  Luke  in 
describing  Paul's  apostleship  and  gospel.  He 
merely  impersonates  the  'bishop  of  bishops' 
addressing  Christendom  at  large,  deprecating 


PSEUDO-APOSTOLIC  EPISTLES      119 

the  loquacity  of  the  "many  teachers,"  and 
commending  the  'wisdom'  of  a  "good  life" 
instead.  There  is  protest  against  oppression. 
But  it  is  only  the  oppression  of  the  poor  by  the 
rich  in  the  Christian  brotherhood.  He  re- 
turns to  this  subject  con  amore.  Evidently 
the  church  of  his  age  is  characterized  by  world- 
liness  both  of  thought  and  conduct,  among 
clergy  and  laity.  But  all  colour  of  region  or 
period  is  wanting.  Take  1st  Peter,  substitute 
the  head  of  the  Jerusalem  succession  for  the 
head  of  the  Roman,  remove  the  Pauline  doc- 
trine, the  traces  of  Jesus  and  His  gospel  of 
sonship,  remove  the  special  references  to 
local  conditions  and  particular  emergencies, 
leaving  only  moral  generalities,  and  the 
result  will  be  not  unlike  the  Epistle  of  James. 
The  author  has  heard  something  of  Paulin- 
ism,  has  read  Hebrews  (Jas.  ii.  21-25;  v. 
10),  and  imitated  1st  Peter  (Jas.  i.  1,  18,  21; 
iv.  6/.;  v.  20).  Strong  arguments  have  even 
been  advanced  to  prove  that  he  was  not  a 
Christian  at  all.  He  probably  was,  if  only 
from  his  literary  connection  with  the  above- 
named  earlier  writings,  and  the  influence 
exerted  by  his  own  on  Hermas  (Rome,  120- 
140),  and  perhaps  Clement  (Rome,  95).  But 
as  for  connection  with  the  historic  Jesus — 
"Elijah"  is  his  example  of  the  man  of  prayer 
(v.  13-18),  and  "Job"  and  "the  prophets" 
his  "example  of  suffering  and  patience"  (v. 
10/.).  Hebrews  can  show  more  of  the  influ- 
ence of  Jesus  than  this  (Heb.  v.  7/.,  xii.  2-4). 


120      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Like  Hermas  (who,  however,  does  not  even 
mention  the  name  of  Jesus)  'James*  thinks 
of  Him  simply  as  "the  Lord  of  glory,"  with- 
out raising  the  question  how  He  came  to  be 
such. 

Apart  from  the  superscription,  whose  ob- 
ject is  only  to  clothe  the  homily  with  the 
authority  of  a  name  revered  throughout  the 
'catholic'  church,  there  is  nothing  to  connect 
James  with  Syria  rather  than  any  other  region 
outside  Paul's  mission-field.  Even  Palestine 
might  be  its  place  of  origin  if  the  date  were 
late  enough  to  account  for  the  Greek  style. 
At  all  events  it  comes  first  to  our  knowledge 
at  Rome.  There  is  some  reason  to  think  that 
Clement  of  Rome  (A.D.  95),  whose  moralizing 
is  of  a  similar  type,  has  been  directly  influ- 
enced by  James.  If  so  we  have  in  James, 
Clement  and  Hermas  a  series  illustrative  of 
the  decline  at  Rome  of  the  Pauline  gospel  of 
conscious  revelation  and  inspiration  toward 
the  hum-drum  levels  of  mere  'catholic' 
catechetics. 

With  every  allowance  for  differences  among 
critics  as  to  date  and  origin  of  the  non-con- 
troversial epistles  of  the  sub-apostolic  age, 
it  is  easy  to  see  that  the  resistless  march  of 
events  is  taking  up  and  accomplishing  Paul's 
effort  and  prayer  for  the  unity  of  the  two 
branches  of  the  Church.  One  great  event  of 
this  period,  which  for  us  stands  out  with 
startling  vividness  upon  the  pages  of  history, 
is  curiously  without  trace  or  reflection  in 


PSEUDO-APOSTOLIC  EPISTLES      121 

this  literature.  We  search  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  vain  for  the  slightest  allusion 
(outside  the  writings  directly  or  indirectly 
derived  from  Palestine  itself)  to  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem  in  A.D.  70,  and  the  consequent 
cessation  of  Jewish  national  life  and  temple 
ceremonial.  The  remoteness  of  the  writers 
with  whom  we  are  dealing  both  in  time  and 
national  interest  from  the  affairs  of  Jerusalem 
is  not  the  only  cause.  The  fate  of  the  temple 
had  no  effect  to  weaken  the  types  of  Judaism 
with  which  the  church  of  the  sub-apostolic 
age  had  to  contend.  The  Pharisaic  legalism 
of  the  synagogue  became  only  the  stronger 
when  the  hollow  Sadducean  priesthood  col- 
lapsed, and  temple  ceremonial  became  simply 
a  ceremonial  on  paper,  the  affair  no  longer  of 
priest  and  Levite,  but  of  scribe  and  Pharisee. 
So  also  with  the  denationalized  Judaism  of  the 
Dispersion,  a  more  insidious  danger  for  early 
converts  from  heathenism  than  the  stricter, 
legalistic  type.  The  crushing  of  the  national- 
istic rebellion,  the  temporary  suppression  of 
the  war-party,  the  Zealots,  only  strengthened 
and  promoted  Pharisaism,  and  the  Disper- 
sion was  scarcely  affected  by  the  losses  of 
the  war.  When  Jerusalem  and  the  temple 
fell,  temple  and  city  had  become  entirely 
superfluous  factors  to  both  parties  in  the 
great  strife  of  church  versus  synagogue. 
Hebrews  knows  of  a  type  of  Judaism  which  is 
formidable  by  reason  of  the  appeal  of  its 
ordinances  of  angels  and  its  sacerdotal  system 


MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

written  in  a  book  of  acknowledged  divine 
authority.  But  the  characteristic  point  is 
that  in  Hebrews,  as  truly  as  in  Barnabas  and 
Justin  Martyr,  it  is  only  the  prescription  and 
not  the  practice  which  is  in  question.  But 
for  the  fact  that  the  "new  testament"  of 
Heb.  ix.  15  is  still  unwritten,  its  controversy 
might  properly  be  described  as  a  battle  of 
books. 

On  the  other  hand  the  pressure  of  persecu- 
tion without,  combined  with  the  disappear- 
ance of  creative  leadership  within,  is  visibly 
forcing  the  independent  provinces  of  Christen- 
dom toward  organic  unity  under  the  principle 
of  apostolic  authority.  First  Peter  is  the  first 
and  greatest  evidence  of  this  tendency  to 
union  promoted  by  external  pressure.  He- 
brews and  James  follow  as  illustrative  of  the 
need  felt  for  maintaining  the  standards  both 
of  doctrine  and  of  morals  at  their  full  height. 
Christianity  must  not  be  thought  of  as  on 
a  level  with  Judaism,  it  is  the  final  and  uni- 
versal revelation.  It  must  not  be  practised 
half-heartedly,  with  "double-mindedness," 
nor  in  vain  philosophizing  and  professions 
belied  by  deeds.  It  must  be  obeyed  as  a  new 
and  royal  law,  the  mirror  of  divine  perfection. 

If,  then,  we  turn  from  these  evidences 
of  general  conditions  in  church  and  empire 
to  the  inward  dangers  revealed  by  the 
writings  against  heresy,  we  shall  see  how 
this  disruptive  influence,  already  distinctly 
apprehended  in  Paul's  later  writings,  makes 


PSEUDO-APOSTOLIC  EPISTLES      123 

itself  more  and  more  strongly  felt,  and  in 
more  and  more  definite  form,  with  Ephesus 
and  the  churches  of  Asia  as  its  chief  breeding- 
place. 

The  Pastoral  Epistles  in  their  present  form 
cannot  be  dated  much  before  the  time  when 
they  begin  to  be  used  by  Ignatius  and  Poly- 
carp  (110-117).  Indeed  some  phrases  (per- 
haps editorial  additions)  seem  to  imply  a  still 
later  date,  as  when  in  1st  Tim.  vi.  20,  Timothy 
is  warned  against  the  "antitheses  of  miscalled 
Gnosis,"  as  if  with  direct  reference  to  Mar- 
cion's  system  of  this  title.  Their  avowed  pur- 
pose is  to  counteract  the  inroads  of  heresy,  and 
the  remedy  applied  is  ecclesiastical  authority 
and  discipline.  Far  more  of  Paul's  inspired 
gospel  of  sonship  and  liberty,  far  more  of  his 
conception  of  the  redemption  in  Christ  as  a 
triumph  over  the  spiritual  world-rulers  of 
this  darkness,  is  found  in  1st  Peter  and  He- 
brews than  here.  Nothing  appears  of  Paul's 
broad  horizon,  his  spirit  of  missionary  con- 
quest, his  devotion  to  the  unity  of  Jew  and 
Gentile  in  their  common  access  to  the  Father 
in  one  Spirit.  There  is  no  trace  of  the  great 
Pauline  doctrines  of  the  conflict  of  flesh  and 
spirit,  the  superseding  of  the  dispensation  of 
Law  by  the  dispensation  of  Grace,  the  Adop- 
tion, the  Redemption,  the  Inheritance.  The 
attention  is  turned  wholly  to  local  conditions, 
maintenance  of  the  transmitted  doctrine  and 
order,  resistance  to  the  advance  of  "vain 
talk,"  "Jewish  fables,"  "foolish  questionings, 


124      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

genealogies  and  strifes  about  the  Law,"  which 
go  hand  in  hand  with  moral  laxity.  In  short 
the  outlook  and  temper  are  those  of  the  Epis- 
tle of  James,  while  the  remedy  is  that  of  Acts 
and  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius.  The  Paul  who 
here  speaks  is  not  the  missionary  and  mystic, 
but  the  shrewd  ecclesiastic.  There  is  only  too 
much  evidence  to  show  that  in  the  Pauline 
mission-field  the  remedy  resorted  to  against 
the  licence  in  thought  and  action  which 
threatened  decadence  and  dissolution  after 
apostolic  inspiration  had  died  out,  was  the 
religion  of  authority,  doctrinal  and  disciplin- 
ary, not  the  religion  of  the  Spirit.  Ecclesiasti- 
cal appointees  take  the  place  as  teachers  and 
defenders  of  the  faith  of  those  who  had  been 
the  inspired  apostles  and  prophets  of  its 
extension. 

And  on  the  other  side  are  the  false  teachers. 
They  are  of  Jewish  character  in  their  doctrine, 
aspiring  to  be  "teachers  of  the  Law"  though 
really  ignorant  of  its  meaning.  The  worst  of 
them  are  actual  Jews  (Tit.  i.  10),  which  im- 
plies that  some  were  not.  Moreover  the  type 
of  doctrine  is  still  less  like  the  Pharisaism  of 
the  synagogue  than  the  "philosophy  and  vain 
deceit"  rebuked  by  Paul  at  Colossae.  There 
is  similar  distinction  of  meats  (treated  in  2nd 
Tim.  iv.  1-5  as  a  doctrine  of  "seducing  spirits 
and  demons"),  and  a  prohibition  of  wine  and 
marriage.  There  is  side  by  side  with  this 
ascetic  tendency  one  equally  marked  toward 
libertinism  and  love  of  money  (2nd  Tim.  iii. 


PSEUDO-APOSTOLIC  EPISTLES      125 

1-9).  Both  phases  remind  us  of  the  "con- 
cision" of  Paul's  later  letters.  But  besides 
the  larger  development  new  features  appear 
of  Hellenistic  rather  than  Jewish  type.  The 
new  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  as  something 
"past  already  "  is  more  closely  connected  with 
the  Pauline  mysticism,  the  present  union  of 
the  believer  with  the  life  of  Christ  "hid  in 
God,"  than  with  the  Jewish  idea  of  return  to 
earth  in  resuscitated  flesh.  The  Paulinist  of 
the  Pastorals  is  already  foreshadowing  the 
great  conflict  of  Ignatius,  Justin  and  Irenaeus 
against  those  who  "denied  the  resurrection," 
perverting  (as  the  fathers  alleged)  the  meaning 
of  Paul's  saying,  "flesh  and  blood  cannot 
inherit  the  kingdom  of  God  "  (cf.  2nd  Pet.  iii. 
16).  And  the  Pastorals  tend  toward  the 
un-Pauline  doctrine  soon  to  be  formulated  in 
the  'catholic'  church:  "I  believe  in  the 
resurrection  of  the  flesh"  Again  the  false 
doctrine  now  distinctly  avows  itself  a  form  of 
Gnosis.  "They  profess  that  they  know  God, 
but  by  their  works  they  deny  him,  being 
abominable  and  disobedient,  and  unto  every 
good  work  reprobate."  And  our  Paulinist's 
remedy  is  the  traditional  doctrine,  the  "pat- 
tern of  sound  words,"  the  "deposit"  of  the 
Church  teacher,  more  especially  the  whole- 
some words,  "even  the  words  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  the  doctrine  which  is 
according  to  godliness."  Thus  even  the  rich, 
if  they  do  good,  and  become  "rich  in  good 
works"  will  "lay  up  in  store  for  themselves 


126      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

a    good    foundation    against    the    time    to 
come." 

We  have  only  to  place  these  pseudo-Pauline 
writings  side  by  side  with  the  Epistles  of  John 
and  Ignatius  to  recognize  the  advance  of  the 
heresy  which  soon  declared  itself  as  Gnostic 
Doketism,  with  the  Jew  Cerinthus  at  Ephesus 
as  its  principal  exponent.  Moreover  this 
steadily  increasing  inward  danger  of  the  Paul- 
ine mission-field,  a  danger  not  merely  sporadic 
like  the  outbursts  of  persecution,  but  con* 
stant  and  increasing,  is  forcing  the  two  great 
branches  of  the  Christian  brotherhood  to- 
gether on  the  basis  of  *  catholicity '  and  the 
*  apostolic'  tradition.  Between  the  churches 
of  the  ^Egean  and  that  of  Rome,  where  both 
parties  stand  on  neutral  ground,  there  are 
exchanged  generous  and  sympathetic  assur- 
ances of  essential  unity  of  doctrine  in  the  great 
outbreak  of  persecution  in  85-90.  Among  the 
Pauline  churches  themselves  there  is  an  irre- 
sistible reaction  against  the  vagaries  and  moral 
laxity  of  heretical  teaching  toward  'apostolic' 
tradition  and  ecclesiastical  authority.  It 
appears  with  almost  startling  vividness  in  the 
Pastoral  Epistles,  and  meets  its  answer  from 
without,  perhaps  from  Rome,  perhaps  from 
Syria,  in  the  homily  dressed  as  an  encyclical 
called  the  Epistle  of  James.  It  is  not  hard  to 
foresee  what  sort  of  Christian  unity  is  des- 
tined to  come  about.  Nevertheless  the  creat- 
ive spirit  and  genius  of  Paul  was  to  find  expres- 
sion in  one  more  splendid  product  of  Ephesus 


PSEUDO-APOSTOLIC  EPISTLES      127 

before  the  Roman  unity  was  to  be  achieved. — 
But  before  we  take  up  the  writings  of  the 
great  'theologian'  of  Ephesus  we  must  trace 
the  growth  in  Syria  and  at  Rome  of  the  Liter- 
ature of  the  Church  Teacher  and  Prophet. 


PART  III 

THE  LITERATURE  OF  CATECHIST  AND  PROPHET 

CHAPTER  VI 

THE   MATTH^EAN   TRADITION   OF   THE 
PRECEPTS   OF  JESUS 

As  we  have  seen  in  our  study  of  the  later 
literature  addressed  to,  or  emanating  from, 
the  Pauline  mission-field,  the  church  teacher 
and  ecclesiastic  who  there  took  up  the  pen 
after  the  death  of  Paul  had  scarcely  any  alter- 
native but  to  follow  the  literary  model  of  the 
great  founder  of  Gentile  Christianity.  Inev- 
itably the  typical  literary  product  for  this 
region  became  the  apostolic  letter,  framed  on 
the  model  of  Paul's,  borrowing  his  phraseology 
and  ideas,  when  not  actually  embodying 
fragments  from  his  pen  and  covering  itself 
with  his  name.  Homilies  are  made  over 
into  "epistles."  Even  *  prophecy/  to  obtain 
literary  circulation,  must  have  prefixed  epis- 
tles of  "the  Spirit "  to  the  churches;  and  when 
at  last  a  gospel  is  produced,  this  too  is  accom- 
panied, as  we  shall  see,  by  three  successive 
layers  of  enclosing  'epistles.' 

128 


THE  MATTH^AN  TRADITION    129 

At  the  seat  of  'apostolic*  Christianity  it 
was  equally  inevitable  that  the  literary 
products  should  follow  a  different  model. 
Here,  from  the  beginning,  the  standard  of 
authority  had  been  the  commandment  of 
Jesus.  Apostleship  had  meant  ability  to 
transmit  His  teaching,  not  endowment  with 
insight  into  the  mystery  of  the  divine  purpose 
revealed  in  His  cross  and  resurrection.  "The 
gospel ' '  was  the  gospel  of  Jesus.  The  letters 
of  Paul,  if  they  circulated  at  all  in  Syria  and 
Cilicia  at  this  early  time,  have  had  com- 
paratively small  effect  on  writers  like  Luke 
and  James.  At  Rome  the  case  was  somewhat 
different.  Here  Pauline  influence  had  been 
effectually  superimposed  upon  an  originally 
Jewish-Christian  stock.  The  Roman  Gospel 
of  Mark,  accordingly,  has  just  the  character- 
istics we  should  expect  from  this  Petro-Paul- 
ine  community.  Antioch,  too,  though  at  the 
disruption  over  the  question  of  table-fellow- 
ship it  took  the  side  of  James,  Peter,  and 
Barnabas  against  Paul,  had  always  had  a 
strong  Gentile  element.  But  Jerusalem,  the 
church  of  the  apostles  and  elders,  with  its 
caliphate  in  the  family  of  Jesus,  and  its  zeal 
for  Jewish  institutions  and  the  Law,  was  the 
pre-eminent  seat  of  traditional  authority.  No 
other  gospel,  oral  or  written,  could  for  a 
moment  compare  in  its  eyes  with  its  own 
cherished  treasury  of  the  precepts  of  Jesus. 
Its  own  estimate  of  itself  as  conservator  of 
orthodoxy,  and  custodian  of  the  sacred 


130     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

deposit,  vividly  reflected  from  the  pages  of 
Hegesippus,  was  increasingly  accepted  by 
the  other  churches.  'James*  and  'Jude' 
were  probably  not  the  real  names  of  the 
writers  of  these  'general'  or  'catholic'  epis- 
tles; but  they  show  in  what  direction  men 
looked  when  there  was  need  to  counteract  a 
widespread  tendency  to  moral  relaxation  and 
vain  disputations,  or  to  demoralizing  heresy. 

We  have  also  seen  how  inevitable  was  the 
reaction  after  Paul's  death,  even  among  his 
own  churches,  toward  a  historic  standard  of 
authority.  Even  more  marked  than  the 
disposition  to  draw  together  in  fraternal 
sympathy  under  persecution,  is  the  reliance 
shown  by  the  Pastoral  Epistles  on  "health- 
giving  words,  even  the  words  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ"  (1st  Tim.  vi.  3),  and  on  a  con- 
solidated apostolic  succession  as  a  bulwark 
against  the  disintegrating  advance  of  heresy. 
In  (proconsular)  Asia  early  in  the  second 
century  there  is  an  unmistakable  and  sweep- 
ing disposition  to  "turn  to  the  word  handed 
down  to  us  from  the  beginning"  (Ep.  ofPolyc., 
vii.)  against  those  who  were  "perverting  the 
sayings  of  the  Lord  to  their  own  lusts."  The 
ancient  "word  of  prophecy"  and  the  former 
revelations  granted  to  apostolic  seers  were 
also  turned  to  account  by  men  like  Papias 
and  the  author  of  2nd  Peter  against  those  who 
"denied  the  resurrection  and  judgment." 

This  Papias  of  Hierapolis,  the  friend  and 
colleague  of  Polycarp,  had  undertaken  in  op- 


THE  MATTH^EAN  TRADITION       131 

position  to  "the  false  teachers,  and  those  who 
have  so  very  much  to  say,"  to  write  (probably 
after  the  utter  destruction  of  the  community 
of  *  apostles,  elders,  and  witnesses'  at  Jeru- 
salem in  135),  an  Exposition  of  the  Sayings  of 
the  Lord.  He  based  the  work  on  authentic 
tradition  of  the  Jerusalem  witnesses,  two  of 
whom  (Aristion,  and  John  'the  Elder')  were 
still  living  at  the  time  of  his  inquiries.  In 
fact,  this  much  debated  "John  the  Elder," 
clearly  distinguished  by  Papias  from  John  the 
"disciple  of  the  Lord,"  may  be  identified,  in 
our  judgment,  with  the  John  mentioned  by 
Eusebius  and  Epiphanius  midway  in  the 
succession  of  'Elders'  of  the  Jerusalem 
church  between  A.D.  62  and  135.  Epiphanius 
dates  his  death  in  117.  Papias  gives  us 
practically  all  the  information  we  have 
regarding  the  beginnings  of  gospel  literature. 
He  may  have  known  all  four  of  our  Gospels. 
He  certainly  knew  Revelation  and  "vouched 
for  its  trustworthiness,"  doubtless  against  the 
deniers  of  the  resurrection  and  judgment. 
He  "used  testimonies"  from  1st  John,  and 
probably  the  saying  of  Jesus  of  John  xiv.  2; 
but  he  seems  to  have  based  his  Exposition 
on  two  gospels  only,  giving  what  he  had 
been  able  to  learn  of  their  history  from  trav- 
ellers who  reported  to  him  testimonies  of 
'the  elders.'  Papias'  two  gospels  were  our 
Matthew  and  our  Mark,  whose  differences 
he  reconciled  by  what  the  Jerusalem  elders 
had  reported  as  to  their  origin.  Matthew, 


132      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

according  to  these  authorities  (?),  represented 
in  its  Greek  form  a  collection  of  the  Precepts 
of  the  Lord  which  had  formerly  been  current 
in  the  original  Aramaic,  so  that  its  circulation 
had  of  course  been  limited  to  Palestine. 
The  original  compiler  had  been  the  Apostle 
Matthew.  Various  Greek  equivalents  of  this 
compilation  had  taken  its  place  where  Ara- 
maic was  not  current.  Thus  Papias,  in 
explicit  dependence  on  "the  Elder"  so  far  as 
Mark  is  concerned,  but  without  special  desig- 
nation of  his  authority  for  the  statement 
regarding  Matthew.  It  is  even  possible  that 
his  representation  that  the  primitive  Matthew 
was  "in  the  Hebrew  tongue"  may  be  due  to 
rumours  whose  real  starting-point  was  noth- 
ing more  than  the  Gospel  of  the  Nazarenes,  a 
product  of  c.  110-140  which  misled  many  later 
fathers,  particularly  Jerome.  We  cannot 
afford,  however,  to  slight  the  general  bearing 
of  testimony  borne  by  one  such  as  Papias 
regarding  the  origins  of  gospel  composition, 
and  particularly  the  two  branches  into  which 
the  tradition  was  divided.  For  Papias  had 
made  diligent  inquiry.  Moreover  his  witness 
does  not  stand  alone,  but  has  the  support  of 
still  more  ancient  reference  (e.  g.  1st  Tim.  vi. 
3,  Acts  i.  1)  and  the  internal  evidence  of  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  themselves.  The  motive  for 
his  statement  is  apologetic.  Differences 
between  the  two  Gospels  had  been  pointed 
out  on  the  score  both  of  words  and  events. 
Papias  shows  that  Gospel  tradition  is  not 


THE  MATTKLEAN  TRADITION    133 

to  be  held  responsible  for  verbal  agree- 
ment between  the  two  parallel  reports  of  the 
Lord's  words.  The  differences  are  attrib- 
utable to  translation.  So,  too,  regarding 
events.  Exact  correspondence  of  Mark  with 
Matthew  (or  other  gospels)  is  not  to  be  looked 
for,  especially  as  regards  the  order;  because 
Mark  had  not  himself  been  a  disciple,  and 
could  not  get  the  true  order  from  Peter,  whose 
anecdotes  he  reproduced;  for  when  Mark 
wrote  Peter  was  no  longer  living.  Mark  has 
reproduced  faithfully  and  accurately  his  recol- 
lection of  "things  either  said  or  done,"  as 
related  by  Peter.  But  Peter  had  had  no  such 
intention  as  Matthew  of  making  a  systematic 
compilation  (syntagma)  of  the  sayings  of  the 
Lord,  and  had  only  related  his  anecdotes  "as 
occasion  required."  If  the  tradition  regard- 
ing Matthew,  as  well  as  that  regarding  Mark, 
was  derived  from  the  Elder,  he,  too,  as  well 
as  Papias,  knew  the  Greek  Matthew;  regard- 
ing it  as  a  "translation"  of  the  apostolic 
Logia,  he  naturally  makes  Matthew  the 
standard  and  accounts  as  above  for  the  wide 
divergence  of  Mark  as  to  order. 

The  Jerusalem  elder  who  thus  differentiates 
the  two  great  branches  of  gospel  tradition  into 
Matthsean  Precepts  and  Petrine  Sayings  and 
Doings,  is  probably  "the  Elder  John";  for 
this  elder's  "traditions"  were  so  copiously 
cited  by  Papias  as  to  lead  Irenaeus,  and  after 
him  Eusebius,  to  the  unwarranted  inference 
of  personal  contact.  Ir emeus  even  identified 


134      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

the  Elder  John  with  the  Apostle,  thus  trans- 
porting not  only  him,  but  the  entire  body  of 
"Elders  and  disciples"  from  Jerusalem  to 
Asia,  a  pregnant  misapprehension  to  which 
we  must  return  later.  In  the  meantime  we 
must  note  that  this  fundamental  distinction 
between  syntagmas  of  the  Precepts,  and 
narratives  of  the  Sayings  and  Doings,  carries 
us  back  as  far  as  it  is  possible  to  penetrate 
into  the  history  of  gospel  composition.  The 
primitive  work  of  the  Apostle  Matthew,  was 
probably  done  in  and  for  Jerusalem  and 
vicinity — certainly  so  if  written  in  Aramaic. 
The  date,  if  early  tradition  may  be  believed, 
was  "when  Peter  and  Paul  were  preaching 
and  founding  the  church  at  Rome."  Oral 
tradition  must  have  begun  the  process  even 
earlier.1  Mark's  work  was  done  at  Rome, 
according  to  internal  evidence  no  less  than  by 
the  unanimous  voice  of  early  tradition.  It 
dates  from  "after  the  death  of  Peter"  (64-65) 
according  to  ancient  tradition.  According 
to  the  internal  evidence  it  was  written  cer- 
tainly not  long  before,  and  probably  some  few 
years  after,  the  overthrow  of  Jerusalem  and 
the  temple  (70).  At  the  time  of  Papias'  writ- 
ing, then  (c.  145),  all  four  gospels  were  prob- 
ably known,  though  only  Matthew  and  Mark 
were  taken  as  authoritative  because  (indi- 
rectly) apostolic.  At  the  time  of  prosecution 

1  Some  authorities  of  the  first  rank  think  there  is  evidence 
of  literary  dependence  in  1st  Cor.  i.  18-21  on  the  Saying 
(Matt.  xi.  25-27 =Lk.  x.  21/.). 


THE  MATTH^AN  TRADITION    135 

of  his  inquiries  the  voice  of  (Palestinian) 
tradition  was  still  "living  and  abiding."  If, 
as  tenses  and  phraseology  seem  to  imply,  this 
means  Aristion  and  the  Elder  John  (ob.  117?) 
it  is  reasonable  to  regard  it  as  extending  back 
over  a  full  generation.  The  original  Matthew 
was  even  then  (c.  100),  and  in  Palestine  itself, 
a  superseded  book.  It  had  three  successors, 
if  not  more,  two  Greek  and  one  Aramaic, 
all  still  retaining  their  claim  to  the  name  and 
authority  of  Matthew; *  but  all  had  been  re- 
cast in  a  narrative  frame,  which  at  least  in  the 
case  of  our  canonical  first  Gospel  was  bor- 
rowed from  the  Roman  work  of  Mark.  So 
far  as  the  remaining  fragments  of  its  rivals 
enable  us  to  judge,  the  same  is  true  in  their 
case  also,  though  to  a  less  extent.  It  is  quite 
unmistakably  true  of  Luke,  the  gospel  of 
Antioch,  that  its  narrative  represents  the 
same  "memorabilia  of  Peter  ";  for  so  Mark's 
gospel  came  to  be  called.  Thus  the  Petrine 
story  appears  almost  from  the  start  to  have 
gained  undisputed  supremacy.  But  side  by 
side  with  this  remarkable  fact  as  to  gospel 
narrative  is  the  equally  notable  confirmation 
of  the  other  statements  of  'the  Elders' 
regarding  the  Precepts.  For  all  modern 

1  The  orthodox  Aramaic  Gospel  of  the  Nazarenes  borrows 
from  Luke  as  well  as  Matthew,  but  speaks  in  the  name  of 
"Matthew."  This  apostle  was  also  regarded  as  author 
of  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  a  heretical  product  of 
c.  120,  current  in  Greek  among  the  Jewish  Christians  of 
Palestine  (Ebionites). 


136      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

criticism  admits,  that  besides  the  material 
of  Mark,  which  both  Matthew  and  Luke 
freely  incorporate,  omitting  very  little,  our 
first  and  third  evangelists  have  embodied, 
in  (usually)  the  same  Greek  translation,  but 
in  greatly  varied  order,  large  sections  from 
one  or  more  early  compilations  of  the  Sayings 
of  Jesus. 

It  is  indispensable  to  a  historical  apprecia- 
tion of  the  environment  out  of  which  any 
gospel  has  arisen  that  we  realize  that  no 
community  ever  produced  and  permanently 
adopted  as  its  "gospel"  a  partial  presentation 
of  the  message  of  salvation.  To  its  mind  the 
writing  must  have  embodied,  for  the  time  at 
least,  the  message,  the  whole  message,  and 
nothing  but  the  message.  Change  of  mind  as 
to  the  essential  contents  of  the  message  would 
involve  supplementation  or  alteration  of  the 
written  gospel  employed.  No  writing  of  the 
kind  would  be  produced  with  tacit  reference 
to  some  other  for  another  aspect  of  the 
truth. 

It  was  not,  then,  the  mere  limitation  of  its 
language  which  caused  the  ancient  Matthsean 
Sayings  (the  so-called  Logid)  to  be  superseded 
and  disappear;  nor  is  mere  "translation" 
the  word  to  describe  that  which  took  its  place. 
The  growth  of  Christianity  in  the  Greek- 
speaking  world,  not  only  called  upon  Jerusalem 
to  pour  out  its  treasure  of  evangelic  tradition 
in  the  language  of  the  empire,  but  stimulated 
a  sense  of  its  own  increasing  need.  That 


THE  MATTILEAN  TRADITION    137 

which  could  once  be  supplied  by  eye-witnesses, 
the  testimony  of  Jesus'  mighty  works,  His 
death  and  resurrection,  was  now  fast  dis- 
appearing. And  simultaneously  the  apprecia- 
tion of  its  importance  was  growing.  It  was 
impossible  to  be  blind  to  the  conquests  made 
by  the  gospel  about  Jesus.  Enclosed  in  it,  as 
part  of  its  substance,  the  gospel  of  Jesus  found 
its  final  resting-place,  much  as  the  mother 
church  itself  was  later  taken  up  and  incorpor- 
ated in  a  catholic  Christendom.  So  it  is  that 
in  the  Elder's  time  the  church  of  the  *  apostles, 
elders  and  witnesses'  have  done  more  than 
merely  supersede  their  Aramaic  (?)  Syntagma 
of  the  Precepts  by  "translations."  They  had 
adopted  alongside  of  it  from  Rome  Mark's 
"Memorabilia  of  Peter"  as  to  "things  either 
said  or  done  by  the  Lord."  We  can  see  indeed 
from  the  apologetic  way  in  which  'the  Elder' 
speaks  of  Mark's  limitations  (Peter  is  not  to 
be  held  responsible  for  the  lack  of  order)  that 
Mark's  authority  is  still  held  quite  secondary 
to  Matthew's;  but  the  very  fact  that  his  work 
is  given  authoritative  standing  at  all,  still 
more  the  fact  that  it  has  become  the  frame- 
work into  which  the  old-time  syntagma  has 
been  set,  marks  a  great  and  fundamental 
change  of  view  as  to  what  constitutes  "the 
gospel." 

No  mere  syntagma  of  the  Precepts  of  Jesus 
has  ever  come  down  to  us,  though  the  papyrus 
leaves  of  "Sayings  of  Jesus"  discovered  in 
1897  at  Behneseh  in  Egypt  by  Grenfell  and 


138      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Hunt  had  something  of  this  character.1  It 
was  impossible  that  any  community  outside 
the  most  primitive  one,  where  personal  "wit- 
nesses of  the  Lord"  still  survived  "until  the 
times  of  Trajan,"  could  be  satisfied  with  a 
"gospel"  which  gave  only  the  precepts  of 
Jesus  without  so  much  as  an  account  of  His 
crucifixion  and  resurrection.  And,  strange 
as  it  may  seem,  the  evidence  of  Q  (i.  e.  the 
coincident  material  in  Matthew  and  Luke  not 
derived  from  Mark),  as  judged  by  nearly  all 
critics,  is  that  no  narrative  of  the  kind  was 
given  in  the  early  compilation  of  discourses 
from  which  this  element  was  mainly  derived. 
After  the  "witnesses,"  apostolic  and  other, 
had  begun  to  disappear,  a  mere  syntagma  of 
Jesus'  sayings  could  not  suffice.  It  became 
inevitable  that  the  precepts  should  be  em- 
bodied in  the  story.  And  yet  we  have  at 
least  two  significant  facts  to  corroborate  the 
intimations  of  ancient  tradition  that  this 
combination  was  long  postponed.  (1)  When 
it  is  at  last  effected,  and  certainly  in  the 
regions  of  southern  Syria,2  there  is  even  there 


1  It  was  superscribed  "These  are  the  ...  words  (logoi 
as  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  not  logia  as  in  Papias  and  Poly- 
carp)  which  Jesus  the  living  Lord  spoke  to  the  disciples  and 
Thomas." 

2  The  possibility  should  be  left  open  that  the  Greek  Mat- 
thew was  written  in  Egypt  (cf.  Matt.  ii.  15),  as  some  critics 
hold.    From  the  point  of  view  of  the  church  historian,  how- 
ever,  Egypt  must  really  be  classed  as  in  "the  regions  of 
southern  Syria."     Its  relations  with  Jerusalem  were  close 
and  constant. 


THE  MATTILEAN  TRADITION    139 

practically  nothing  left  of  authentic  narrative 
material  but  the  Petrine  tradition  as  compiled 
by  Mark  at  Rome.  Our  Matthew,  a  Pales- 
tinian Jew,  the  only  writer  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment who  consistently  uses  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  makes  a  theoretical  reconstruction  of 
the  order  of  events  in  the  Galilean  ministry, 
but  otherwise  he  just  incorporates  Mark 
substantially  as  it  was.  What  he  adds  in  the 
way  of  narrative  is  so  meagre  in  amount,  and 
so  manifestly  inferior  and  apocryphal  in  char- 
acter, as  to  prove  the  extreme  poverty  of  his 
resources  of  oral  tradition  of  this  type.  Luke 
has  somewhat  larger,  and  (as  literary  prod- 
ucts) better,  narrative  additions  than  Mat- 
thew's; but  the  amount  is  still  extremely 
meagre,  and  often  historically  of  slight  value. 
Some  of  it  reappears  in  the  surviving  frag- 
ments of  the  Preaching  of  Peter.  To  sum  up, 
there  is  outside  of  Mark  no  considerable 
amount  of  historical  material,  canonical  or 
uncanonical,  for  the  story  of  Jesus.  This 
fact  would  be  hard  to  account  for  if  in  the 
regions  where  witnesses  survived,  the  first 
generation  really  took  an  interest  in  perpet- 
uating narrative  tradition.  (2)  The  order  of 
even  such  events  as  secured  perpetuation  was 
already  hopelessly  lost  at  a  time  more  remote 
than  the  writing  of  our  earliest  gospel.  This 
is  true  not  only  for  Mark,  as  'the  Elder' 
frankly  confesses,  but  for  Matthew,  Luke  and 
every  one  else.  Unchronological  as  Mark's 
order  often  is  (and  the  tradition  as  to  the 


140      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

'casual  anecdotes'  agrees  with  the  critical 
phenomena  of  the  text),  it  is  vastly  more 
historical  than  Matthew's  reconstruction.  On 
the  other  hand  Luke,  while  expressly  under- 
taking to  improve  in  this  special  respect  upon 
his  predecessors,  almost  never  ventures  to 
depart  from  the  order  of  Mark,  and  when  he 
does  has  never  the  support  of  Matthew,  and 
usually  not  that  of  real  probability.  In  short, 
incorrect  as  they  knew  the  order  of  Mark  to 
be,  it  was  the  best  that  could  be  had  in  the 
days  when  evangelists  began  to  go  beyond  the 
mere  syntagmas,  and  to  write  "gospels"  as 
we  understand  them,  or,  in  their  own  lan- 
guage, "the  things  which  Jesus  began  both  to 
do  and  to  teach"  (Acts  i.  1).  From  these  two 
great  outstanding  phenomena  of  gospel  criti- 
cism alone  it  would  be  apparent  that  the  dis- 
tinction dimly  perceived  in  the  tradition  of 
the  Jerusalem  elders  reported  by  Papias,  and 
indeed  by  many  later  writers,  is  no  illusion, 
but  an  important  and  vital  fact. 

A  third  big,  unexpected  fact  looms  up  as 
we  round  the  capes  of  critical  analysis,  sub- 
tracting from  Matthew  and  Luke  first  the 
elements  peculiar  to  each,  then  that  derived 
by  each  from  Mark.  It  is  a  fact  susceptible, 
however,  of  various  interpretations.  To  some 
it  only  proves  either  the  futility  of  criticism, 
or  the  worthlessness  of  ancient  tradition.  To 
us  it  proves  simply  that  the  process  of  tran- 
sition in  Palestine,  the  home  of  evangelic 
tradition,  from  the  primitive  syntagma  of 


THE  MATTILEAN  TRADITION    141 

Precepts,  framed  on  the  plan  of  the  Talmudic 
treatise  known  as  Pirke  Aboth,  or  "Sayings 
of  the  Fathers,"  to  the  Greek  type  of  narrative 
gospel,  was  a  longer  and  more  complex  one 
than  has  commonly  been  imagined.  A  cur- 
sory statement  of  the  results  of  critical  efforts 
to  reproduce  the  so-called  "second  source"  of 
Matthew  and  Luke  (Mark  being  considered 
the  first),  will  serve  to  bring  out  the  fact  to 
which  we  refer,  and  at  the  same  time,  we 
hope,  to  throw  light  upon  the  history  of 
gospel  development. 

The  mere  process  of  subtraction  above 
described  to  obtain  the  element  Q  offers  no 
serious  difficulties,  and  for  those  who  attach 
value  to  the  tradition  of  'the  Elders'  it  is 
natural  to  anticipate  that  the  remainder  will 
show  traits  corresponding  to  the  description 
of  an  apostolic  syntagma  of  sayings  of  the  Lord 
translated  from  the  Aramaic,  in  short  the 
much-desired  Logia  of  Matthew.  The  actual 
result  is  disappointing  to  such  an  expecta- 
tion. The  widely,  though  perhaps  somewhat 
thoughtlessly  accepted  equivalence  Q  =  the 
Logia  is  simply  false.  Q  is  not  the  Logia. 
It  is  not  a  syntagma,  nor  even  a  consistent 
whole,  and  as  it  lay  before  our  first  and  third 
evangelists  it  was  not  (for  a  considerable  part 
at  least)  in  Aramaic.  True,  Q  does  consist 
almost  exclusively  of  discourse  material,  a 
large  part  of  which  has  only  topical  order, 
and  is  wholly,  or  mainly,  destitute  of  narrative 
connection.  Also  we  find  traces  here  and  there 


142      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

of  translation  at  some  period  from  the  Ara- 
maic, though  not  more  in  the  Q  element  than 
in  Mark.  But  to  those  who  looked  for  im- 
mediate confirmation  of  the  tradition  the 
result  has  been  on  the  whole  disappointing. 
Some,  more  particularly  among  English 
critics,  have  considered  it  to  justify  a  falling 
back  upon  the  vaguer  generalities  of  the  once 
prevalent  theory  of  oral  tradition.  In  reality 
we  are  simply  called  upon  to  renew  the  proc- 
ess of  discrimination.  Most  of  the  Q  material 
has  the  saying-character  and  is  strung  to- 
gether with  that  lack  of  all  save  topical  order 
which  we  look  for  in  a  syntagma.  But  parts  of 
it,  such  as  the  Healing  of  the  Centurion's 
servant  (Matt.  viii.  5-10,  13  =  Luke  vii.  1- 
10),  or  the  Preaching  of  the  Baptist  and 
Temptation  Story  (Matt.  iii.  7-10,  12;  iv.  2- 
11  =  Luke  iii.  7-9,  17;  iv.  2-13),  obstinately 
refuse  to  be  brought  under  this  category. 
Moreover,  the  latter  section  has  the  unmis- 
takable motive  of  presenting  Jesus  in  His 
character  and  ministry  as  "the  Son  of  God," 
precisely  as  in  Mark.  It  begins  by  intro- 
ducing Jesus  on  the  stage  at  the  baptism  of 
John,  after  the  ancient  narrative  outline  (Acts 
i.  22;  x.  37  /.),  and  cannot  be  imagined  as 
forming  part  of  anything  else  but  a  narrative 
having  the  conclusion  characteristic  of  our 
own  type  of  gospel.  Other  considerable 
sections  of  Q,  such  as  the  Question  of  John's 
Disciples  and  Discourse  of  Jesus  on  those  that 
were  'Stumbled'  in  Him  (Matt.  xi.  2-11,  16- 


THE  MATTH^AN  TRADITION    143 

27;  Luke  vii.  18-35;  x.  13-22),  share  with  the 
Baptism  and  Temptation  section  not  only  the 
doctrinal  motive  of  commending  Jesus  in  His 
person  and  ministry  as  the  longed-for  Son  of 
God,  but  in  a  number  of  characteristics  which 
set  them  quite  apart  from  the  general  mass  of 
precepts  and  parables  in  Q.  We  can  here 
mention  only  the  following:  (1)  the  coinci- 
dence in  language  between  Matthew  and  Luke 
is  much  greater  in  these  sections  of  Q,  often 
even  greater  than  in  the  sections  borrowed 
from  Mark,  showing  clearly  the  existence  of  a 
common  document  written,  not  in  Aramaic, 
but  in  the  Greek  language.  (2)  This  material, 
unlike  most  of  Q,  has  served  as  a  source  and 
model  in  many  portions  of  Mark.  (3)  It  is 
for  the  most  part  not  included  in  the  five 
great  blocks  into  which  Matthew  has  divided 
the  Precepts  by  means  of  a  special  concluding 
formula  (vii.  28;  xi.  1;  xiii.  53;  xix.  1,  and 
xxvi.  1),  but  appears  outside,  in  the  form  of 
supplements  to  the  Markan  narrative  (iii.  7- 
iv.  11;  viii.  5-13,  18-22,  xi.  2-27;  xii.  38-45, 
etc.).  Finally  (4)  the  Q  material  of  this  type 
seems  to  be  given  more  copiously  by  Luke 
than  by  Matthew,  and  with  something  more 
than  mere  conjecture  of  his  own  as  to  its 
historical  occasion.  In  fact,  since  it  appears 
that  at  least  this  element  of  Q  was  known  to 
Mark,  there  is  nothing  to  justify  exclusion 
from  it  of  such  material  as  the  Transfigura- 
tion story,  though  in  this  case  it  would  be 
needful  to  prove  that  Mark  was  not  the 


144      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

source.  Similarly  it  would  be  reasonable  to 
think  of  Luke's  wide  divergence  from  Mark 
in  his  story  of  the  Passion  as  occasioned  by 
his  preference  for  material  derived  from  this 
source.  Only,  since  Matthew  has  preferred 
to  follow  Mark,  we  have  no  means  of  deter- 
mining whence  Luke  did  derive  his  new  and 
here  often  valuable  material. 

The  existence,  then,  of  an  element  of  Q 
which  quite  fails  to  correspond  to  what  we 
take  the  Matthsean  syntagma  to  have  been 
by  no  means  proves  either  the  futility  of 
criticism  or  the  worthlessness  of  the  ancient 
tradition.  It  only  shows  that  our  synoptic 
evangelists  were  not  the  first  to  attempt  the 
combination  of  discourse  with  narrative,  but 
that  Luke  at  least  had  a  predecessor  in  the 
field,  to  whom  all  are  more  or  less  indebted. 
Criticism  and  tradition  together  show  that 
there  are  two  great  streams  from  which  all 
historically  trustworthy  material  has  been 
derived.  The  one  is  Evangelic  Story,  and  is 
mainly  derived  from  Mark's  outline  of  the 
ministry  based  on  the  anecdotes  of  Peter, 
though  some  elements  come  from  another 
source,  principally  preserved  by  Luke,  which 
we  must  discuss  in  a  later  chapter  devoted 
to  the  growth  of  Petrine  Story  at  Rome 
and  Antioch.  The  other  stream,  "Words  of 
the  Lord,"  comes  from  Jerusalem,  and  is 
always  associated  in  all  its  forms  with  the 
name  of  Matthew.  We  have  every  reason 
for  accepting  the  statement  that  as  early  as 


THE  MATTH^AN  TRADITION    145 

the  founding  of  the  church  in  Rome  (45-50) 
the  Apostle  Matthew  had  begun  the  work  of 
compiling  the  Precepts  of  Jesus,  in  a  form 
serviceable  to  the  object  of  "teaching  men  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  He  had  com- 
manded." Our  present  Gospel  of  Matthew, 
however,  is  neither  this  work  nor  a  transla- 
tion of  it;  for  the  only  three  things  told  us 
about  the  apostle's  work  are  all  irreconcilable 
with  the  characteristics  of  our  Matthew.  The 
compilation  of  "Words  of  the  Lord"  was 
(1)  a  syntagma  and  not,  like  Mark,  an  outline 
of  the  ministry.  It  was  (2)  written  in  Ara- 
maic; whereas  our  Matthew  is  an  original 
Greek  composition.  It  was  (3)  by  an  apostle 
who  had  personal  acquaintance  with  Jesus; 
whereas  our  first  evangelist  is  to  the  last 
degree  dependent  upon  the  confessedly  de- 
fective story  of  Mark.  Still  if  we  take  our 
Matthew  as  the  last  link  in  the  long  chain  of 
development,  covering  perhaps  half  a  cen- 
tury, and  including  such  by-products  as  the 
Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  and  the  Gospel 
of  the  Nazarenes,  we  may  obtain  a  welcome 
light  upon  the  environment  out  of  which  has 
come  down  the  work  which  an  able  scholar 
justly  declared,  "the  most  important  book 
ever  written,  the  Gospel  according  to  Mat- 
thew." 

The  language  in  which  it  was  written  was 
alone  sufficient  to  place  the  Greek  Matthew 
beyond  all  possible  competition  in  the  larger 
world  from  Aramaic  rivals.  But  its  com- 


146      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

prehensiveness  and  catholicity  still  further 
helped  it  to  the  position  which  it  soon  attained 
as  the  most  widely  used  of  all  the  gospels. 
Matthew  is  not  only  in  its  whole  structure  a 
composite  gospel,  but  shows  in  high  degree  the 
catholicizing  tendency  of  the  times.  Just 
as  it  frankly  adopts  the  Roman-Petrine 
narrative  of  Mark  with  slightest  possible 
modification,  so  also  it  places  in  Peter's  hand 
with  equal  frankness  the  primacy  in  apostolic 
succession.  Almost  the  only  additions  it 
makes  to  Mark's  account  of  the  public  minis- 
try are  the  story  of  Peter's  walking  on  the  sea 
(xiv.  28-33),  and  his  payment  of  the  temple 
tribute  for  Christ  and  himself  with  the  coin 
from  the  fish's  mouth  (xvii.  24-27).  The 
latter  story  introduces  the  chapter  on  the 
exercise  of  rulership  in  "the  church"  (ch. 
xviii.),  beginning  with  the  disciples'  question: 
"  Who  then  is  greatest  in  the  kingdom?  "  Peter 
is  again  in  it  the  one  salient  figure  (xviii.  21). 
An  equally  important  addition,  connected 
with  xviii.  17  /.  is  the  famous  committal  to 
Peter  of  the  power  of  the  keys,  with  the 
declaration  making  him  for  his  confession  the 
'Rock'  foundation  of  "the  church."  This 
addition  to  Mark's  story  of  the  rebuke  of 
Peter  at  Csesarea  Philippi,  is  one  which  deci- 
dedly alters  its  bearing,  and  seems  even  to 
borrow  the  very  language  of  Gal.  i.  16  /.  in 
order  to  exalt  the  apostleship  of  Peter.  In 
fact,  the  Roman  gospel  and  the  Palestinian 
almost  reverse  the  roles  we  should  expect 


-THE  MATTH^EAN  TRADITION    147 

Peter  to  play  in  each.  Matthew  alone  makes 
Peter  "the  first"  (x.  2),  while  Mark  seems  to 
take  special  pains  to  record  rebukes  of  the 
twelve  and  the  brethren  of  the  Lord,  and 
especially  the  rebukes  called  down  upon 
themselves  by  Peter,  or  Peter  and  John. 

In  respect  to  the  primacy  of  Peter  we  can 
observe  a  certain  difference  even  among  the 
Palestinian  gospels  which  succeeded  to  the 
primitive  syntagma  of  Matthew.  Little,  in- 
deed, is  known  of  the  orthodox  Gospel 
of  the  Nazarenes,  beyond  its  relatively  late 
and  composite  character;  for  it  borrowed 
from  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  in  turn.  Its 
list  of  apostles,  however,  begins  with  "John 
and  James  the  sons  of  Zebedee,"  then  "Simon 
and  Andrew,"  and  winds  up:  "Thee  also, 
Matthew,  did  I  call,  as  thou  wert  sitting  at 
the  seat  of  custom,  and  thou  followedst  me." 
The  anti-Pauline  Gospel  according  to  the  He- 
brews shows  its  conception  of  the  seat  of 
apostolic  authority  by  giving  to  "James  the 
Just"  the  place  of  Peter  as  recipient  of  that 
first  manifestation  of  the  risen  Lord,  which 
laid  the  foundation  of  the  faith.  Why  then 
does  the  Greek  Palestinian  gospel,  in  con- 
trast with  its  rivals,  lay  such  special  stress  on 
the  primacy  of  Peter? 

From  the  cautious  and  (as  it  were)  depre- 
catory tone  of  the  appendix  to  John  (John 
xxi.)  in  seeking  to  commend  the  "other  dis- 
ciple whom  Jesus  loved"  as  worthy  to  be 
accepted  as  a  "true  witness"  without  detri- 


148      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

ment  to  the  acknowledged  authority  of  Peter 
as  chief  under-shepherd  of  the  flock,  we  may 
infer  that  not  at  Rome  alone,  but  wherever 
there  was  question  of  'apostolic'  tradition, 
the  authority  of  Peter  was  coming  rapidly  to 
the  fore.  The  tendency  at  Antioch  is  even 
more  marked  than  at  Rome,  as  is  manifest 
from  Acts.  If,  then,  it  seems  stronger  still  in 
a  region  where  we  should  expect  the  authority 
of  James  to  be  put  forward,  this  need  not  be 
taken  as  a  specifically  Roman  trait.  We  must 
realize  the  sharp  antagonism  which  existed  in 
Palestine  from  the  time  of  the  Apostolic 
council  down,  between  (1)  the  consistent 
legalists,  who  maintained  down  to  the  period 
of  Justin  (153)  and  the  Clementine  Homilies 
and  Recognitions  (180-200),  their  bitter  hos- 
tility to  Paul  and  his  gospel  of  Gentile  freedom 
from  the  Law;  an«d  (2)  the  'catholic,'  or 
liberal,  Jewish-Christians,  who  took  the  stand- 
point of  the  Pillars.  It  is  but  one  of  many 
indications  of  its  'catholic'  tendency  that  our 
Matthew  increases  the  emphasis  on  the  apos- 
tolic authority  of  Peter  to  the  point  of  an 
actual  primacy.  The  phenomenon  must  be 
judged  in  the  light  of  the  disappearance  or 
suppression  of  all  evangelic  story  save  what 
came  under  the  name  of  Peter,  and  the  ten- 
dency in  Acts  to  bring  under  his  name  even 
the  entire  apostleship  to  the  Gentiles.  Peter 
is  not  yet  in  these  early  writings  the  repre- 
sentative of  Rome,  but  of  catholicity.  The 
issue  in  Matthew  is  not  as  between  Rome  and 


THE  MATTH^EAN  TRADITION    149 

some  other  dominant  see,  but  (as  the  reflec- 
tion of  the  language  of  Gal.  i.  17  /.  in  Matt, 
xvi.  17  shows)  as  between  'catholic'  apostolic 
authority  and  the  unsafe  tendencies  of  Pauline 
independence. 

Nevertheless,  for  all  his  leanings  to  catholi- 
city the  Greek  Matthew  has  not  wholly  suc- 
ceeded in  excluding  materials  which  still 
reflect  Jewish-Christian  hostility  to  Paul,  or 
at  least  to  the  tendencies  of  Pauline  Chris- 
tianity. Over  and  over  again  special  additions 
are  made  in  Matthew  to  emphasize  a  warning 
against  the  workers  of  "lawlessness."  The 
exhortation  of  Jesus  in  Luke  vi.  42-45  to 
effect  (self-)  reformation  not  on  the  surface, 
nor  in  word,  but  by  change  of  the  inward  root 
of  disposition  fructifying  in  deeds,  is  altered 
in  Matt.  vii.  15-22  into  a  warning  against 
the  "false  prophets"  who  work  "lawless- 
ness," and  who  must  be  judged  by  their  fruits. 
They  make  the  confession  of  Lordship  (cf. 
Rom.  x.  9),  but  are  not  obedient  to  Jesus' 
commandment,  and  lack  good  works.  In 
particular  the  test  of  Mark  ix.  38-40  is  directly 
reversed.  The  principle  "Whosoever  is  not 
against  us  is  for  us"  is  not  to  be  trusted.  A 
teacher  may  exercise  the  'spiritual  gifts'  of 
prophecy,  exorcism,  and  miracles  wrought  in 
the  name  of  Jesus,  and  still  be  a  reprobate. 
A  similar  (and  most  incongruous)  addition 
is  made  to  Mark's  parable  of  the  Patient 
Husbandman  (Mark  iv.  26-29),  in  Matt.  xiii. 
24-30,  and  reiterated  in  a  specially  appended 


150      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

"interpretation"  (xiii.  36-43).  This  addition 
likens  the  "workers  of  lawlessness"  to  tares 
sown  alongside  the  good  seed  of  the  word  by 
"an  enemy."  A  similar  incongruous  attach- 
ment is  made  to  the  parable  of  the  Marriage 
feast  (Matt.  xxii.  1-14;  cf.  Luke  xiv.  15-24) 
to  warn  against  the  lack  of  the  'garment  of 
good  works.'  Finally,  Matthew  closes  his 
whole  series  of  the  discourses  of  Jesus  with  a 
group  of  three  parables  developed  with  great 
elaboration  and  rhetorical  effect,  out  of 
relatively  slight  suggestions  as  found  else- 
where. The  sole  theme  of  the  series  is  the 
indispensableness  of  good  works  in  the  judg- 
ment (Matt.  25;  cf.  Luke  xii.  35-38;  xix.  11- 
28,  and  Mark  ix.  37,  41).  A  similar  interest 
appears  in  Matthew's  insistence  on  the  per- 
manent obligation  of  the  Law  (v.  (16)  17-20; 
xix.  16-22— in  contrast  with  Mark  x.  17-22), 
on  respect  for  the  temple  (xvii.  24-27)  and  on 
the  Dayidic  descent  of  Jesus,  with  fulfilment 
of  messianic  promise  in  him  (chh.  i.-ii. ;  ix.  27). 
He  limits  the  activity  of  Jesus  to  the  Holy 
Land  (xv.  22;  contrast  Mark  vii.  24/.),  makes 
him  in  sending  forth  the  Twelve  (x.  5  /.) 
specifically  forbid  mission  work  among  Samar- 
itans or  Gentiles,  and  while  the  prohibition  is 
finally  removed  in  xxviii.  18-20,  the  apostolic 
seat  cannot  be  removed,  but  remains  as  in 
x.  23,  among  "the  cities  of  Israel"  to  the  end 
of  the  world. 

There  is  probably  no  more  of  intentional 
opposition  to  Paul  or  to  his  gospel  in  all  this 


THE  MATTH^AN  TRADITION    151 

than  in  James  or  Luke.  We  cannot  for 
example  regard  it  as  more  than  accidental 
coincidence  that  in  the  phrase  "an  enemy 
hath  done  this,"  in  the  parable  of  the  tares, 
we  have  the  same  epithet  which  the  Ebionite 
literature  applies  to  Paul.  But  enough  re- 
mains to  indicate  how  strongly  Jewish-Chris- 
tian prejudices  and  limitations  still  affected 
our  evangelist.  With  respect  to  date,  the 
atmosphere  is  in  all  respects  such  as  character- 
izes the  period  of  the  nineties. 

It  does  not  belong  to  our  present  purpose 
to  analyze  this  gospel  into  its  constituent 
elements.  The  process  can  be  followed  in 
many  treatises  on  gospel  criticism,  and  the 
results  will  be  found  summarized  in  Intro- 
ductions to  the  New  Testament  such  as  the 
recent  scholarly  work  of  Moffatt.  We  have 
here  but  to  note  the  general  character  and 
structure  of  the  book  as  revealing  the  main 
outlines  of  its  history  and  the  conditions  which 
gave  it  birth. 

Matthew  and  Luke  are  alike  in  that  both 
represent  comparatively  late  attempts  to 
combine  the  ancient  Matthaean  syntagma  with 
the  *  Memorabilia  of  Peter*  compiled  by 
Mark.  But  there  is  a  great  difference.  Luke 
contemplates  his  work  with  some  of  the  mo- 
tives of  the  historian.  He  adopts  the  method 
of  narrative,  and  therefore  subordinates  his 
discourse  material  to  a  conception  (often 
confused  enough)  of  sequence  in  space  and 
time.  Matthew,  as  the  structure  of  his  gospel, 


MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

no  less  than  his  own  avowal  shows,  had  an 
aim  more  nearly  corresponding  to  the  ancient 
Palestinian  type.  The  demand  for  the  narra- 
tive form  had  become  irresistible.  It  con- 
trolled even  his  later  Greek  and  Aramaic 
rivals.  But  Matthew  has  subordinated  the 
historical  to  the  ethical  motive.  He  aims  at, 
and  has  rendered,  just  the  service  which  his 
age  demanded  and  for  which  it  could  look  to 
no  other  region  than  Jerusalem,  a  full  com- 
pilation of  the  commandments  and  precepts  of 
Jesus. 

The  narrative  framework  is  adopted  from 
Mark  without  serious  alteration,  because  this 
work  had  already  proved  its  effectiveness  in 
convincing  men  everywhere  that  Jesus  was 
"the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God."  Like  Luke, 
Matthew  prefixes  an  account  of  Jesus'  miracu- 
lous birth  and  childhood,  because  in  his  time 
(c.  90)  the  ancient  "beginning  of  the  gospel" 
with  the  baptism  by  John  had  given  oppor- 
tunity to  the  heresy  of  the  Adoptiorgsts, 
represented  by  Cerinthus,  who  maintained 
that  Jesus  became  the  Son  of  God  at  His 
baptism,  a  merely  temporary  "receptacle" 
of  the  Spirit.  The  prefixed  chapters  have  no 
incarnation  doctrine,  and  no  doctrine  of  pre- 
existence.  They  do  not  intend  in  their  story 
of  the  miraculous  birth  to  relate  the  incoming 
of  a  super-human  or  non-human  being  into 
the  world,  else  they  could  not  take  up  the 
pedigree  of  Joseph  as  exhibiting  Jesus'  title 
to  the  throne  of  David.  Miracle  attends  and 


THE  MATTH.EAN  TRADITION    153 

signalizes  the  birth  of  that  "Son  of  David" 
who  is  destined  to  become  the  Son  of  God. 
Apart  from  the  mere  question  of  attendant 
prodigy  the  aim  of  Matthew's  story  of  the 
Infancy  is  such  as  should  command  the  respect 
and  sympathy  of  every  rational  thinker. 
Against  all  Doketic  dualism  it  maintains  that 
the  Son  of  God  is  such  from  birth  to  death. 
The  presence  of  God's  Spirit  with  Him  is  not 
a  mere  counterpart  to  demonic  "possession," 
but  is  part  of  His  nature  as  true  man  from  the 
beginning. 

But  the  doctrinal  interest  of  Matthew 
scarcely  goes  beyond  the  point  of  proving 
that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  foretold  by  the 
prophets.  Doctrine  as  well  as  history  is 
subordinate  to  the  one  great  aim  of  teaching 
men  to  "observe  all  things  whatsoever  Jesus 
commanded." 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  PETRINE  TRADITION.      EVANGELIC 
STORY 

OF  the  extent  to  which  the  early  church 
•  could  do  without  narrative  of  Jesus'  earthly 
ministry  we  have  extraordinary  evidences  in 
the  literature  of  Pauline  Christianity  on  the 
one  side  and  of  Jewish  Christianity  on  the 
other.  For  Paul  himself,  as  we  know,  the 
real  story /of  Jesus  was  a  transcendental 
drama  of  the  Incarnation,  Redemption,  and 
Exaltation.  It  is  probable  that  when  at  last 
"three  years"  aiter  his  conversion  he  went 
up  to  Jerusalem  "to  get  acquainted  with 
Peter,"  the  story  he  was  interested  to  hear 
had  even  then  more  to  do  with  that  common 
apostolic  witness  of  the  resurrection  appear- 
ances reproduced  in  1st  Cor.  xv.  3-11,  than 
with  the  sayings  and  doings  of  the  ministry. 
As  to  this  Paul  preserves,  as  we  have  seen, 
an  almost  unbroken  silence.  And  that  which 
did  not  interest  Paul,  naturally  did  not  inter- 
est his  churches. 

On  the  other  hand  those  who  could  have 
perpetuated  a  full  and  authentic  account  of 

154 


THE  PETRINE  TRADITION        155 

the  ministry  were  almost  incredibly  slow  to 
undertake  the  task;  partly,  no  doubt,  be- 
cause of  their  vivid  expectation  of  the  imme- 
diate end  of  the  world,  but  largely  also  because 
to  their  mind  the  data  most  in  need  of  pres- 
ervation were  the  'life-giving  words.'  The 
impression  of  Jesus'  character,  His  person  and 
authority,  was  not,  as  they  regarded  it,  a 
thing  to  be  gained  from  the  historical  out- 
line of  His  career.  It  was  established  by  the> 
fact  of  the  Resurrection,  by  the  predictions 
of  the  prophets,  which  found  fulfilment  in 
the  circumstances  of  Jesus'  birth,  particular 
incidents  here  and  there  in  His  career  and  fate, 
but  most  of  all  in  His  resurrection  and  the 
gifts  of  the  Spirit  which  argued  His  present 
session  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  Once  this 
authority  of  Jesus  was  established  the  believer 
had  only  to  observe  His  commandments  as 
handed  down  by  the  apostles,  elders,  and 
witnesses. 

On  all  sides  there  was  an  indifference  to  such 
historical  inquiry  as  the  modern  man  would 
think  natural  and  inevitable,  an  indifference 
that  must  remain  altogether  inexplicable  to 
us  unless  we  realize  that  until  at  least  the 
time  of  the  fourth  evangelist  the  main  proofs 
of  messiahship  were  not  looked  for  in  Jesus' 
earthly  career.  His  Christhood  was  thought 
of  as  something  in  the  future,  not  yet  realized. 
Even  His  resurrection  and  manifestation  in 
glory  "at  the  right  hand  of  God,"  which  is 
to  both  Paul  (Rom.  i.  4)  and  his  predecessors 


156      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

(Acts  ii.  32-36)  the  assurance  that  "God 
hath  made  Him  both  Lord  and  Christ,"  is  not 
yet  the  beginning  of  His  specific  messianic  pro- 
gramme. Potentially  this  has  begun,  because 
Jesus  has  already  been  seated  on  the  *  throne 
of  glory,'  "from  henceforth  expecting  until  His 
enemies  be  made  the  footstool  of  His  feet." 
Practically  it  is  not  yet.  The  Christ  is  still 
a  Christ  that  is  to  be.  His  messianic  rule 
is  delayed  until  the  subjugation  of  the 
"enemies";  and  this  subjugation  in  turn  is 
delayed  by  "the  longsuffering  of  God,  who 
willeth  not  that  any  should  perish,  but 
that  all  men  should  come  to  repentance." 
Meantime  a  special  "outpouring  of  the 
Spirit"  is  given  in  'tongues,'  'prophecies/ 
'miracle  working,'  and  the  like,  in  fulfil- 
ment of  scriptural  promise,  as  a  kind  of 
coronation  largess  to  all  loyal  subjects.  This 
outpouring  of  the  Spirit,  then,  is  the  great 
proof  and  assurance  that  the  Heir  has  really 
ascended  the  'throne  of  glory'  in  spite  of 
the  continuance  of  "all  things  as  they  were 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world."  These 
'gifts'  are  "firstfruits  of  the  Spirit,"  pledges 
of  the  ultimate  inheritance,  proofs  both  to 
believers  and  unbelievers  of  the  complete 
Inheritance  soon  to  be  received.  But  the 
gifts  have  also  a  practical  aspect.  They  are 
all  endowments  for  service.  The  Great  Re- 
pentance in  Israel  and  among  the  Gentiles 
is  not  to  be  brought  about  without  the  co- 
operation of  believers.  The  question  which  at 


THE  PETRINE  TRADITION         157 

once  arises  when  the  manifestation  of  the 
risen  Christ  is  granted,  "Lord,  dost  thou  at 
this  time  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel?" 
is  therefore  answered  by  the  assurance  that 
the  time  is  in  God's  hand  alone,  but  that 
the  *  gifts  of  the  Spirit/  soon  to  be  imparted, 
are  intended  to  enable  believers  to  do  their 
part,  at  home  and  abroad,  toward  effecting 
the  Great  Repentance  (Acts  i.  6-8)  .l 

For  a  church  which  felt  itself  endowed  with 
living  and  present  evidences  of  the  messianic 
power  of  Jesus  it  was  naturally  only  a  second 
thought  (and  not  a  very  early  one  at  that) 
to  look  back  for  proof  to  occurrences  in  Jesus' 
life  in  Galilee,  however  notable  His  career  as 
"a  prophet  mighty  in  deed  and  word  before 
God  and  all  the  people."  The  present  gifts 
of  His  power  would  be  (at  least  in  demon- 
strative effect)  "greater  works  than  these." 
With  those  who  had  the  resurrection  testi- 
mony of  1st  Cor.  xv.  3-11,  and  even  the  re- 

1  The  parallel  in  Mark  xvi.  14-18  is  very  instructive, 
but  needs  the  recently  discovered  connection  between  verses 
14  and  15  to  complete  the  sense:  "And  they  excused  them- 
selves (for  their  unbelief)  saying,  This  age  of  lawlessness  and 
unbelief  is  under  the  dominion  of  Satan,  who  by  means  of 
the  unclean  spirits  prevents  the  truth  and  power  of  God 
from  being  apprehended.  On  this  account  reveal  thy  right- 
eousness (i.  e.  justice,  in  the  sense  of  Isa.  Ivi.  1  6)  even  now. 
And  Christ  replied  to  them,  The  limit  of  years  of  Satan's 
power  is  (already)  fulfilled,  but  other  terrible  things  are 
at  hand;  moreover  I  was  delivered  up  to  death  on  behalf  of 
sinners  in  order  that  they  might  return  unto  the  truth  and 
sin  no  more,  that  they  might  inherit  the  spiritual  and  incor- 
ruptible glory  which  is  in  heaven."  Then  follows  the  mission 
into  all  the  world  and  endowment  with  the  gifts. 


158      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

current  experience  of  "visions  and  revela- 
tions of  the  Lord,"  anticipatory  revelations  of 
His  messiahship,  utterances,  like  that  to  Peter 
at  Csesarea  Philippi,  wherein  Jesus  only  pre- 
dicted the  great  work  to  be  divinely  accom- 
plished through  Him,  whether  by  life  or  death, 
in  going  up  to  Jerusalem,  intimations  which 
liad  been  disregarded  or  disbelieved  at  the 
time,  could  not  rank  with  present  knowledge, 
experience,  and  insight.  They  would  be 
recalled  merely  as  confirmatory  foregleams 
of  "the  true  light  that  now  shineth,"  as 
the  two  who  had  received  the  manifes- 
tation at  Emmaus  exclaim,  "Did  not  our 
heart  burn  within  us  while  He  talked  to  us 
in  the  way?" 

We  could  not  indeed  psychologically  ac- 
count for  the  development  of  the  resurrection 
faith  after  the  crucifixion,  if  before  it  Jesus' 
life  and  utterances  had  not  been  such  as  to 
make  His  manifestation  in  glory  seem  to  the 
disciples  just  what  they  ought  to  have  ex- 
pected. But,  conversely,  nothing  is  more 
certain  than  the  fact  that  they  did  not  expect 
it;  and  that  when  the  belief  had  become 
established  by  other  means,  the  attitude 
toward  the  "sayings  and  doings"  maintained 
by  those  who  had  them  to  relate — as  we  know, 
the  most  successful  missionary  of  all  felt  it 
no  handicap  to  be  entirely  without  them — 
was  one  of  looking  back  into  an  obscure  past 
for  things  whose  pregnant  significance  became 
appreciable  only  in  the  light  of  present  knowl- 


THE  PETRINE  TRADITION        159 

edge.  "These  things  understood  not  His 
disciples  at  the  first,  but  when  Jesus  was 
glorified,  then  remembered  they  that  these 
things  had  been  written  of  Him,  and  that 
they  had  done  these  things  unto  Him." 

We  are  fortunate  in  having  even  one  exam- 
ple of  the  "consecutive  narratives"  (diegeses) 
referred  to  in  Luke  i.  1.  Our  Mark  is  a  gospel 
written  purely  and  simply  from  this  point 
of  view,  aiming  only  to  show  how  the  earthly 
career  of  Jesus  gave  evidence  that  this  was 
the  Son  of  God,  predestined  to  exaltation  to 
the  right  hand  of  power,  with  little  attempt, 
if  any,  to  bring  in  the  precepts  of  the  New 
Law.  We  should  realize,  however,  that  this 
is  already  a  beginning  in  the  process  soon 
to  become  controlling,  a  process  of  carrying 
back  into  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus  in  Galilee 
of  first  this  trait,  then  that,  then  all  the 
attributes  of  the  glorified  Lord. 

Ancient  and  reliable  tradition  informs  us 
that  this  first  endeavour  to  tell  the  story  of 
"Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  God"  was  composed 
at  Rome  by  John  Mark,  a  former  companion 
of  both  Peter  and  Paul,  from  data  drawn  from 
the  anecdotes  casually  employed  by  Peter 
in  his  preaching.  There  is  much  to  confirm 
this  in  the  structure,  the  style,  and  the  doc?- 
trinal  object  and  standpoint  of  the  Gospel. 

To  begin  with,  the  date  of  composition 
cannot  be  far  from  75.  Mark  is  not  only 
presupposed  by  both  Matthew  and  Luke,  but 
in  their  time  had  already  acquired  an  ex- 


160      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

traordinary  predominance.  To  judge  by  what 
remains  to  us  of  similar  products,  Mark  in 
its  own  field  might  almost  be  said  to  reign 
supreme  and  reign  alone.  Such  almost  ex- 
clusive supremacy  could  not  have  been 
attained,  even  by  a  writing  commonly  under- 
stood to  represent  the  preaching  of  Peter, 
short  of  a  decade  or  more  of  years.  On  the 
other  hand  we  have  the  reluctant  testimony 
of  antiquity,  anxious  to  claim  as  much  as 
possible  of  apostolic  authority  for  the  record, 
but  unwilling  to  commit  Peter  to  apparent 
contradictions  of  Matthew,  that  it  was  written 
after  Peter's  death  (64-5). 1  Internal  evidence 
would  in  fact  bring  down  the  date  of  the 
work  in  its  present  form  a  full  decade  there- 
after. It  is  true  that  there  are  many  struc- 
tural evidences  of  more  than  one  form  of  the 
narrative,  and  that  the  apocalyptic  chapter 
(ch.  xiii.),  which  furnishes  most  of  the  evi- 
dence of  date,  may  well  belong  among  the  later 
supplements.  But  in  the  judgment  of  most 
critics  this  ' eschatological  discourse'  (almost 
the  only  connected  discourse  of  the  Gospel) 
is  clearly  framed  in  real  retrospect  upon  the 
overthrow  of  Jerusalem  and  the  temple, 
and  the  attendant  tribulation  on  "those  that 
are  in  Judaea."  The  writer  applies  a  general 
saying  of  Jesus  known  to  us  from  other 
sources  about  destroying  and  rebuilding  the 

1  So  Irenseus  (186)  and  (by  implication)  Papias.  Clement 
of  Alexandria  (210)  meets  the  difficulty  by  alleging  that  Peter 
was  still  alive,  but  gave  no  aid  to  the  writer. 


THE  PETRINE  TRADITION        161 

temple  specifically  to  the  demolition  effected 
by  Titus  (70).  He  warns  his  readers  in  the 
same  connection  that  "the  end"  is  not  to 
follow  immediately  upon  the  great  Judsean 
war,  but  only  when  the  powers  of  evil  in  the 
heavenly  places,  powers  inhabiting  sun,  moon, 
and  stars,  are  shaken  (xiii.  21-27).  The 
Pauline  doctrine  of  2nd  Thess.  ii.  1-12  is 
adopted,  but  with  careful  avoidance  of  the 
prediction  that  the  "man  of  sin"  is  to  appear 
"in  the  temple  of  God."  Paul's  "man  of 
sin"  is  now  identified  with  Daniel's  "abomi- 
nation that  maketh  desolate"  (Dan.  xii.  11), 
which  therefore  is  spoken  of  as  "he"  (mascu- 
line). "His"  appearance  will  prelude  the 
great  Judsean  tribulation;  but  his  standing 
place  is  ill-defined.  It  is  only  "where  he 
ought  not."  Matthew  (following  his  usual 
practice)  returns  more  nearly  to  the  language 
of  Daniel.  With  him  the  "Abomination" 
is  again  an  object  standing  "in  a  holy  place." 
But  Matthew  is  already  applying  the  proph- 
ecy to  another  tribulation  still  to  come.  He 
does  not  see  that  Mark  refers  to  the  sack  of 
Jerusalem  on  which  he  himself  looks  back  in 
his  addition  to  the  parable  of  the  Supper 
(Matt.  xxii.  6 /.;  cf.  Luke  xiv.  15-24),  but 
takes  Mark  xiii.  14-23  as  Jesus'  prediction  of 
a  great  final  tribulation  still  to  come. 

Mark's  crudities  of  language  and  style,  his 
frequent  latinisms,  his  explanation  to  his 
readers  (almost  contemptuously  exaggerated) 
of  Jewish  purifications  and  distinctions  of 


162      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

meats  (vii.  3/.),  presupposition  of  the  Roman 
form  of  divorce  (x.  12),  explanation  in  Roman 
money  of  the  value  of  the  (Greek  and  Orien- 
tal) "mite"  (lepton),  are  well-known  con- 
firmations of  the  tradition  of  the  writing's 
place  of  origin.  But  these  are  superficial 
characteristics.  More  important  for  us  to 
note  is  the  fundamental  conception  of  what 
constitutes  "the  gospel,"  and  the  writer's 
attitude  on  questions  of  the  relation  of 
Jew  and  Gentile  and  the  authority  of  the 
apostles  and  kindred  of  the  Lord. 

The  most  striking  characteristic  of  Mark  is 
that  it  aims  to  present  the  gospel  about  Jesus, 
and  is  relatively  indifferent  to  the  gospel  of 
Jesus.  Had  the  writer  conceived  his  task 
after  the  manner  of  a  Matthew  there  is  little 
doubt  that  he  could  have  compiled  catechetic 
discourses  of  Jesus  like  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  or  the  discourse  on  prayer  of  Luke  xi. 
1-13.  The  fact  that  he  disregards  such 
records  of  Jesus'  ethical  and  religious  instruc- 
tion does  not  mean  that  he  (tacitly)  refers  his 
readers  to  the  Matthsean  Precepts,  or  similar 
compilations,  to  supplement  his  own  de- 
ficiencies. It  means  a  different,  more  Pauline, 
conception  of  what  "the  gospel"  is.  Mark 
conceives  its  primary  element  to  be  attach- 
ment to  the  person  of  Jesus,  and  has  already 
gone  far  toward  obliterating  the  primitive 
distinction  between  a  Jesus  whose  earthly 
career  had  been  "in  great  humility,"  and  the 
glorified  Son  of  God.  The  earthly  Jesus  is 


THE  PETRINE  TRADITION        163 

still,  it  is  true,  only  a  man  endowed  with  the 
Spirit  of  Adoption.  But  He  is  so  completely 
"in"  the  Spirit,  and  so  fully  endowed  with 
it,  as  almost  to  assume  the  Greek  figure  of  a 
demi-god  treading  the  earth  incognito.  No 
wonder  this  Gospel  became  the  favourite  of 
the  Adoptionists  and  Doketists. 

Mark  does  not  leave  his  reader  in  the  dark 
as  to  what  a  man  must  do  to  inherit  eternal 
life.  The  requirement  does  not  appear  until 
after  Jesus  has  taken  up  with  the  twelve 
the  road  to  Calvary,  because  it  is  distinctly 
not  a  keeping  of  commandments,  new  or  old. 
It  is  an  adoption  of  "the  mind  that  was  in 
Christ,  who  humbled  Himself  and  became 
obedient  unto  death."  In  Matthew's  'im- 
proved' version  of  Jesus'  answer  to  the  rich 
applicant  for  eternal  life,  the  suppliant  is 
told  he  may  obtain  it  by  obeying  the  com- 
mandments, with  supererogatory  merit  ("if 
thou  wouldest  be  perfect"),  if  he  follows 
Jesus'  example  of  self -abnegating  service.  In 
the  form  and  context  from  which  Matthew 
borrows  (Mark  x.  13-45)  there  is  no  trace  of 
this  legalism,  and  the  whole  idea  of  super- 
erogatory merit,  or  higher  reward,  is  strenu- 
ously, almost  indignantly,  repudiated.  No 
man  can  receive  the  kingdom  at  all  who  does 
not  receive  it  "as  a  little  child."  Every  man 
must  be  prepared  to  make  every  sacrifice,  even 
if  he  has  kept  all  the  commandments  from  his 
youth  up.  Peter  and  the  disciples  who  have 
"left  all  and  followed"  are  in  respect  to 


164      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

reward  on  the  same  level  as  others.  Peter's 
plea  for  the  twelve  is  answered,  "There  is 
no  man  that  hath  left"  earthly  possessions 
for  Christ's  sake  that  is  not  amply  com- 
pensated even  here.  He  must  expect  perse- 
cution now,  but  will  receive  eternal  life 
hereafter.  Only  "many  that  are  first  shall 
be  last,  and  last  first."  Even  the  martyr- 
apostles  James  and  John  will  have  no  supe- 
rior rights  in  the  Kingdom. 

Such  passages  as  the  above  not  only  reveal 
why  Mark's  gospel  shows  comparative  dis- 
regard of  the  Precepts,  but  also  displays  an 
attitude  toward  the  growing  claims  of  apos- 
tolic authority  and  neo-legalism  which  in  con- 
trast with  Matthew  and  Luke  is  altogether 
refreshing.  The  kindred  of  the  Lord  appear 
but  twice  (iii.  20/.,  31-35  and  vi.  1-6),  both 
times  in  a  wholly  unfavourable  light.  "John 
appears  but  once,  and  that  to  receive  a  re- 
buke for  intolerance.  James  and  John  appear 
only  to  be  rebuked  for  selfish  ambition. 
Peter  seldom  otherwise  than  for  rebuke. 
All  the  disciples  show  constantly  the  blind- 
ness and  "hardness  of  heart"  which  is  ex- 
plicitly said  to  characterize  their  nation 
(vi.  52;  vii.  18;  viii.  12,  14-21).  Their  self- 
seeking  and  unfaithfulness  is  the  foil  to  Jesus' 
self-denial  and  faithfulness  (viii.  33;  ix.  6, 
18/.,  29;  x.  24,  28,  32,  37,  41;  xiv.  27-31, 
37-41,  50,  66-72).  That  which  in  Matthew 
(xvi.  16-19)  has  become  a  special  divine  reve- 
lation to  Peter  of  the  messiahship,  marking 


THE  PETRINE  TRADITION        165 

the  foundation  of  the  church,  is  in  the  earlier 
Markan  form  (Mark  viii.  27-33)  not  a  revela- 
tion of  the  messiahship  at  all.  Peter's  answer, 
"Thou  art  the  Christ,"  is  common  knowledge. 
The  twelve  are  not  supposed  to  be  more 
ignorant  than  the  demons!  There  is,  how- 
ever, a  caustic  rebuke  of  Peter  for  his  carnal, 
Jewish  idea  of  the  implications  of  Christhood. 
A  revelation  of  its  significance  almost  Doketic 
in  character  is  indeed  granted  just  after  to 
"Peter,  James,  and  John";  but  they  remain 
without  appreciation  or  understanding  of 
the  'vision,'  though  it  exhibits  Jesus  in  His 
heavenly  glory  in  company  with  the  trans- 
lated heroes  of  the  Old  Testament.  The 
revelation  still  remains,  therefore,  a  sealed 
book  until  "after  the  resurrection." 

This  exaggeration  of  the  disciples'  obtuse- 
ness  is  partly  due,  no  doubt,  to  apologetic 
motives.  The  evangelist  has  to  meet  the 
objection,  If  Jesus  was  really  the  extraordi- 
nary, super-human  being  represented,  and  was 
openly  proclaimed  such  by  the  evil  spirits, 
why  was  nothing  heard  of  His  claims  until 
after  the  crucifixion  and  alleged  resurrection? 
His  carrying  back  into  the  Galilean  ministry 
of  the  glorified  Being  of  Paul's  redemption 
doctrine  compels  Him  to  represent  the  twelve 
as  sharing  the  dulness  of  the  people  who 
"having  eyes  see  not,  and  having  ears  hear 
not."  But  with  all  allowance  for  this,  the 
Roman  Gospel  shows  small  consideration  for 
the  apostles  and  kindred  of  the  Lord. 


166      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

It  shows  quite  as  little  for  Jewish  preroga- 
tive and  Jewish  law.  Jesus  speaks  in  parables 
because  to  those  "without"  His  preaching  is 
to  be  intentionally  a  'veiled'  gospel  (iv. 
1-34).  The  Inheritance  will  be  taken  away 
from  them  and  given  to  others  (xii.  1-12). 
Priests  and  people  together  were  guilty  of 
the  rejection  and  murder  of  Jesus  (xv.  11-15, 
29-32).  Forgiveness  of  sins  is  offered  by 
Jesus  on  His  own  authority  in  defiance  of 
the  scribes.  Their  exclusion  of  the  publicans 
and  sinners  He  disregards,  proclaims  abolition 
of  their  fasts,  and  holds  their  sabbath-keep- 
ing up  to  scorn  (ii.  1 — iii.  6).  On  the  question 
of  distinctions  of  meats  His  position  is  the  most 
radical  possible.  The  Jewish  ceremonial  is 
a  "vain  worship,"  mere  "commandments  of 
men."  Defilement  cannot  be  contracted  by 
what  "goes  into  a  man."  Jesus'  saying  about 
inward  purity  was  not  aimed  at  the  mere 
'hedge  of  the  Law'  (Matt.  xv.  13),  nor  the 
mere  matter  of  ablutions  (Matt.  xv.  20),  but 
was  intended  to  "make  all  meats  clean" 
(vii.  1-23).  Moses'  law  in  some  of  its  enact- 
ments does  not  represent  the  real  divine  will, 
but  a  human  accommodation  to  human  weak- 
ness (x.  2-9).  Obedience  to  its  highest  code 
does  not  ensure  eternal  life  (x.19-21).  The 
single  law  of  love  is  "much  more  than  all 
whole  burnt  offering  and  sacrifices"  (xii. 
28-34).  When  all  the  references  to  Judaism, 
its  Law,  its  institutions,  and  its  prerogative, 
are  of  this  character,  when  Jesus  always 


THE  PETRINE  TRADITION        167 

appears  in  radical  opposition  to  the  Law  and 
its  exponents  (xii.  38-40;  xiii.  1  /.),  never  as 
their  supporter  in  any  degree,  the  evangelist 
comes  near  to  making  it  too  hard  for  us  to 
believe  that  He  really  was  of  Jewish  birth. 

On  the  other  hand  we  cannot  doubt  the 
statement  that  he  derives  his  anecdotes, 
however  indirectly,  from  the  preaching  of 
Peter.  The  prologue  (i.  1-13),  indeed,  makes 
no  pretence  of  reporting  the  testimony  of  any 
witness,  but  acquaints  the  reader  with  the 
true  nature  of  Jesus  as  "the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  God"  by  means  of  a  mystical  account  of 
His  baptism  and  endowment  with  the  Spirit 
of  Adoption,  probably  resting  upon  that 
document  of  Q,  which  we  have  distinguished 
from  the  Precepts.  But  the  ensuing  story 
of  the  ministry  opens  at  the  home  of  Peter  in 
Capernaum,  and  continues  more  or  less  con- 
nected therewith  in  spite  of  interjected  groups 
of  anecdotes  whose  connection  is  not  chrono- 
logical but  topical,  such  as  ii.  1 — iii.  6;  iii. 
22-30;  iv.  1-34.  It  reaches  its  climax  where 
Jesus  at  Csesarea  Philippi  takes  Peter  into 
His  confidence.  Here  again  the  mystical 
Revelation  or  Transfiguration  vision  (ix.  2-10) 
interrupts  the  connection,  and  shows  its 
foreign  derivation  by  the  transcendental  sense 
in  which  it  interprets  the  person  of  Jesus. 
Certain  features  suggest  its  having  been  taken 
from  the  same  source  as  the  prologue  (i.  1-13). 

The  story  issues  in  the  tragedy  at  Jerusa- 
lem, where,  as  before,  Peter's  figure,  however 


168      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

unfavourable  the  contrast  in  which  it  is  set  to 
that  of  Jesus,  is  still  the  salient  one.  The 
outline  in  general  is  identical  with  that  so 
briefly  sketched  in  Acts  x.  38-42 — except  that 
the  absolutely  essential  point,  the  one  thing 
which  no  gospel  narrative  can  possibly  have 
lacked,  the  resurrection  manifestation  to  the 
disciples,  and  the  commission  to  preach  the 
gospel,  is  absolutely  lacking! 

That  Mark's  gospel  once  contained  such  a 
conclusion  is  almost  a  certainty.  Imagine  a 
gospel  narrative  without  a  report  of  the  mani- 
festation of  the  risen  Lord  to  His  disciples! 
Imagine  a  church — and  that  the  church  at 
Rome — giving  out  as  the  first,  the  authentic, 
original,  and  (in  intention)  the  only  account 
of  the  origin  of  the  Christian  faith  (Mark  i.  1), 
a  narrative  which  ended  with  the  apostles 
scattered  in  cowardly  desertion,  and  Peter 
the  most  conspicuous,  most  remorseful  rene- 
gade of  them  all!  He  who  writes  in  Peter's 
name  from  Rome  but  shortly  after,  affection- 
ately naming  Mark  "my  son,"  must  have 
had  indeed  a  forgiving  spirit.  But  traces  of 
the  real  sequel  have  not  all  disappeared. 
Many  outside  allusions  still  remain  to  the 
turning  again  of  Peter  and  stablishing  of 
his  brethren  in  the  resurrection  faith.  The 
earliest  is  Paul's  (1st  Cor.  xv.  5).  The  present 
Mark  itself  implies  that  it  once  had  such  an 
ending;  for  Jesus  promises  to  rally  His  flock 
in  Galilee  after  He  is  raised  up  (xiv.  28), 
and  the  women  at  the  sepulchre  are  bidden 


THE  PETRINE  TRADITION        169 

to  remind  the  disciples  of  the  promise,  though 
they  fail  to  deliver  their  message.  Indeed 
the  whole  Gospel  looks  forward  to  it.  To 
this  end  "the  mystery  of  the  kingdom"  is 
given  to  the  chosen  twelve  (iii.  13 /.,  31-35; 
iv.  10-12);  for  this  they  are  forewarned 
(though  vainly)  of  the  catastrophe  (viii.  34 — 
ix.  1,  30-32;  x.  32-34;  xiv.  27-31).  In  fact 
the  promise  of  a  baptism  of  the  Spirit  (i.  8) 
probably  implies  that  the  original  sequel 
related,  not  only  the  appearance  to  Peter  and 
(later)  to  the  rest  with  the  charge  to  preach, 
but  also  their  endowment  with  the  gifts, 
perhaps  as  in  John  xx.  19-23.  What  we 
now  have  is  only  a  substitute  for  this  original 
sequel,  a  substitute  so  ill-fitting  as  to  have 
provoked  repeated  attempts  at  improvement. 
From  xvi.  8  onwards,  as  is  well  known,  the 
oldest  textual  authorities  have  simply  a  blank. 
Later  authorities  give  a  shorter  or  longer 
substitute  for  the  missing  Manifestation  and 
Charge  to  the  twelve.  The  shorter  follows 
Matthew,  the  longer  follows  Luke,  with  traces 
of  acquaintance  with  John.  Fanciful  theories 
to  explain  these  textual  phenomena,  such  as 
accidental  mutilation  of  the  only  copy,  are 
improbable,  and  do  not  explain.  If  conjecture 
be  permissible  it  is  more  likely  that  the  orig- 
inal work  was  in  two  parts,  after  the  manner 
of  Luke- Acts,  the  'former  treatise'  ending 
with  the  centurion's  testimony,  "Truly  this 
man  was  a  Son  of  God"  (xv.  39).  The  second 
part  continued  the  narrative  in  the  form  of 


170      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

a  Preaching  of  Peter,  perhaps  ending  with  his 
coming  to  Rome;  for  the  ancient  literature 
of  the  church  had  several  narratives  of  this 
type.  Its  disappearance  will  have  been  due 
to  the  superseding  (perhaps  the  embodiment) 
of  it  by  the  work  of  Luke.  When  the  primi- 
tive Markan  'former  treatise'  was  adapted  for 
separate  use  as  a  gospel  it  was  quite  natural 
that  it  should  be  supplemented  (we  can  hardly 
say  "completed")  by  the  addition  of  the 
story  of  the  Empty  Sepulchre  (xv.  40 — xvi.  8), 
though  this  narrative  is  quite  unknown  to 
the  primitive  resurrection  preaching  (cf.  1st 
Cor.  xv.  3-11),  and  one  in  which  every  char- 
acter save  Pilate  is  a  complete  stranger  to 
the  body  of  the  work.  The  subsequent 
further  additions  of  the  so-called  "longer" 
and  "shorter"  endings  belong  to  the  history 
of  transcription  after  A.D.  140. 

It  will  be  apparent  from  the  above  that  the 
Gospel  of  Mark  is  no  exception  to  the  rule  that 
church-writings  of  this  type  inevitably  under- 
go recasting  and  supplementation  until  the 
advancing  process  of  canonization  at  last 
fixes  their  text  with  unalterable  rigidity. 
Whether  we  recognize  "sources,"  or  earlier 
"forms,"  or  only  earlier  "editions"  of  Mark, 
it  is  certain  that  appendices  could  still  be 
attached  long  after  the  appearance  of  Luke, 
and  probable  that  in  the  early  period  of  its 
purely  local  currency  at  Rome  the  fund  of 
Petrine  anecdote  had  received  more  than  one 
adaptation  of  form  before  it  was  carried  to 


THE  PETRINE  TRADITION        171 

Syria  and  embodied  substantially  as  we  now 
have  it  in  the  composite  gospels  of  Matthew 
and  Luke.  The  omission  by  Luke  of  Mark 
vi.  45 — viii.  26  is  intentional,1  and  cannot  be 
used  to  prove  the  existence  of  a  shorter  form; 
and  the  same  is  probably  true  of  the  omission 
of  Mark  ix.  38-40  by  Matthew.  Mark  xii.  41- 
44,  however,  is  probably  an  addition  later 
than  Matthew's  time.  Neither  Matthew  nor 
Luke  had  a  text  extending  beyond  xvi.  8. 
But  signs  of  acquaintance  with  the  original 
sequel  appear  in  the  appendix  to  John 
(John  xxi.)  and  in  the  late  and  composite 
Gospel  of  Peter  (c.  140).  According  to  the 
latter  the  twelve  remained  in  Jerusalem 
scattered  and  in  hiding  for  the  remaining  six 
days  of  the  feast.  At  its  close  they  departed, 
mourning  and  grieving,  each  man  to  his  own 
home.  Peter  and  a  few  others,  including 
"Levi  the  son  of  Alpheus,"  resumed  their 
fishing  "on  the  sea."  .  .  .  The  fragment 
breaks  off  at  this  point.  The  story  may  be 
conjecturally  completed  from  1st  Cor.  xv. 
5-8,  with  comparison  of  John  xxi.  1-13; 
Luke  v.  4-8;  xxii.  31  /.;  xxiv.  34,  36-43. 

As  we  look  back  upon  the  undertaking  of 
this  humble  author,  named  only  by  tradition, 
one  among  the  catechists  of  the  great  church 
of  Paul  and  Peter,  writing  but  a  few  years 
after  their  death,  but  a  few  years  before 
1st  Peter  and  Hebrews,  one  is  struck  by  the 
grandeur  of  his  aim.  It  is  true  he  was  not 

1  See  below. 


172      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

wholly  without  predecessors  in  the  field.  The 
work  which  afforded  him  at  least  the  sub- 
stance of  his  prologue,  and  in  all  probability 
other  considerable  sections  of  his  book,  had 
already  aimed  in  a  more  mystical  way  to  con- 
nect the  Pauline  doctrine  of  Christ  as  the  Wis- 
dom of  God  with  the  mighty  works  and  teach- 
ings of  Jesus.  Duplication  of  a  considerable 
part  of  Mark's  story  (vii.  31 — viii.  26,  repeats 
with  some  variation  vi.  30 — vii.  30)  shows  that 
his  work  was  one  of  combination  as  well  as 
creation.  But  outline,  proportion,  and  on- 
ward march  of  the  story  show  not  only  skill 
and  care,  but  large-minded  and  consistent 
adherence  to  the  fundamental  plan  to  tell 
the  origin  of  the  Christian  faith  (Mark  i.  1). 

Confirmation  of  the  belief  and  practice  of 
the  church — it  is  for  this  that  Mark  reports 
all  he  can  learn  of  the  years  of  obscurity  in 
Galilee  followed  by  the  tragedy  in  Jerusalem. 
Not  only  belief  in  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God  will 
be  justified  by  the  story,  but  the  founding, 
institutions,  and  ritual  of  the  existing  church. 
He  manifestly  adapts  it  to  show  not  only  the 
superhuman  powers  and  attributes  of  the 
chosen  Son  of  God,  but  the  germ  and  type 
of  all  the  church's  institutions.  Its  baptism 
of  repentance  and  accompanying  gift  of  the 
Spirit  of  Adoption  only  repeats  the  experience 
of  Jesus  at  the  baptism  of  John.  Endowment 
with  the  word  of  wisdom  and  the  word  of 
power  is  but  the  counterpart  of  Jesus'  divine 
equipment  with  "the  power  of  the  Spirit" 


THE  PETRINE  TRADITION        173 

when  He  taught  and  healed  in  Galilee.  The 
Sending  of  the  Twelve  sets  the  standard  for 
the  church's  evangelists  and  missionaries, 
just  as  the  Breaking  of  the  Bread  in  Galilee 
gives  the  model  for  its  fraternal  banquet.  So 
for  the  Judsean  ministry  as  well.  The  path  of 
martyrdom  is  that  which  all  must  follow,  its 
Passover  Supper  of  the  Lord  and  Vigil  in 
Gethsemane  are  models  for  the  church's 
annual  observance,  its  Passover  of  the  Lord, 
its  Vigil,  its  Resurrection  feast.  The  group- 
ing of  the  anecdotes  is  not  all  of  Mark's 
doing,  for  we  can  still  see  in  many  cases  how 
they  have  grown  up  around  the  church  observ- 
ances, to  explain  and  justify  the  rites,  rather 
than  to  form  part  of  an  outlined  career.  But 
taking  the  work  as  a  whole,  and  considering 
how  far  beyond  that  of  any  other  church  was 
the  opportunity  at  Rome,  where  Paul  had 
transmitted  the  lofty  conception  of  the  Son 
of  God,  and  Peter  the  concrete  tradition  of 
his  earthly  life,  we  cannot  wonder  that  Mark's 
outline  so  soon  became  the  standard  account 
of  Jesus'  earthly  ministry,  and  ultimately  the 
only  one. 

But  little  space  remains  in  which  to  trace 
the  developments  of  gospel  story  in  other 
fields.  Southern  Syria  and  Egypt  soon  found 
it  needful,  as  we  have  seen,  to  adopt  the  work 
of  Mark,  but  independently  and  as  a  frame- 
work for  the  Matthsean  Precepts.  It  cannot 
have  been  long  after  that  Antioch  and  North- 
ern Syria  followed  suit.  For  Luke,  though 


174     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

acquainted  with  the  work  of  'many'  predeces- 
sors gives  no  sure  evidence  of  acquaintance 
with  Matthew.  When  we  find  such  unsoft- 
ened  contradictions  as  those  displayed  be- 
tween these  two  Greek  gospels  in  their  open- 
ing and  closing  chapters,  and  observe,  more- 
over, that  while  both  indulge  in  hundreds  of 
corrections  and  improvements  upon  Mark, 
these  are  rarely  coincident  and  never  make 
the  assumption  of  interdependence  necessary, 
it  is  hard  to  resist  the  conclusion  that  neither 
evangelist  was  directly  acquainted  with  the 
other's  work.  Now  no  other  gospel  compares 
with  Matthew  in  the  rapidity  and  extent  of 
its  circulation,  while  Luke  declares  himself  a 
diligent  inquirer.  He  could  not  ignore  the 
claims  of  apostolic  authority  to  which  this 
early  and  wide  acceptance  of  Matthew  were 
mainly  due.  The  inference  is  reasonable  that 
Luke's  date  was  but  little  later  than  that 
of  Matthew.  If  the  probability  of  his  em- 
ployment of  the  Antiquities  of  Josephus  could 
be  raised  to  a  certainty  this  would  suffice  to 
date  the  Gospel  and  Book  of  Acts  not  earlier 
than  96.  Internal  and  external  evidence,  as 
judged  by  most  scholars,  converge  on  a  date 
approximating  100. 

The  North-Syrian  derivation  of  Luke-Acts 
is  less  firmly  established  in  tradition  than  the 
Roman  origin  of  Mark  and  the  South-Syrian 
of  Matthew.  Ancient  tradition  can  point  to 
nothing  weightier  than  the  statement  of 
Eusebius,  drawn  we  know  not  whence,  but 


THE  PETRINE  TRADITION        175 

independently  made  in  the  argumenta  (pre- 
fixed descriptions)  of  several  Vulgate  manu- 
scripts, that  Luke  was  of  Antiochian  birth. 
However,  internal  evidence  supplies  corrob- 
oration  in   rather   unusual   degree.     If   the 
reading  of  some  texts  in  Acts  xi.  28,  "And  as 
we  were  assembled,"  could  be  accepted,  this 
alone  would  be  almost  conclusive  corrobora- 
tion.    But  dubious  as  it  is,  it  furnishes  sup- 
port.   For  if  an  alteration  of  the  original,  it  is 
at  any  rate  extremely  early  (c.  150  ?)   and 
aimed   to   support   the   belief   in   question.1 
Moreover  the  whole  attitude  of  Luke-Acts  in 
respect  to  apostolic  authority,  settlement  of 
the  great  question  of  the  terms  of  fellowship 
between  Jew  and  Gentile,  and  description  of 
the  founding  of  the  Pauline  churches,  is  such 
as  to  make  its  origin  anywhere  between  the 
Taurus  range  and  the  Adriatic  most  improb- 
able;  while  if  we  place  it  in  Rome  we  shall 
have  an  insoluble  problem  in  the  relation  of 
its  extreme  emphasis  on  apostolic  authority, 
and  quasi-deification  of  Peter,  to  the  stalwart 
independence  of  Mark.    Conversely  there  are 
many  individual  traits  which  suggest  Antioch 
as  the  place  of  origin.     Next  to  Jerusalem, 
the    never-to-be-forgotten    church    of    "the 
apostles  and  elders,"  Antioch  is  the  mother 
church   of    Christendom.     There  the  name 
"Christian"  had  its  origin.    There  the  work 
of  converting  the  Gentiles  was  begun.    The 

1  Note,  also,  how  in  Acts  vi.  5  the  list  of  deacon-evange- 
lists concludes  "and  Nicholas  a  proselyte  of  Antioch" 


176      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Greek  churches  of  Cyprus  and  Asia  Minor  are 
regarded  as  dependencies  of  Antioch.  Even 
those  of  the  Greek  peninsula  are  linked  as 
well  as  may  be  to  Antioch  and  Jerusalem, 
with  suppression  of  the  story  of  the  schism. 
Antioch,  not  the  Pauline  Greek  churches,  is 
the  benefactress  of  "the  poor  saints  in  Jeru- 
salem," and  at  the  instance  of  Antioch,  by 
appeal  to  "the  apostles  and  elders,"  the 
"decrees"  are  obtained  which  permanently 
settle  the  troublesome  question  of  the  obliga- 
tion of  maintaining  ceremonial  cleanness 
which  still  rests  upon  "the  Jews  which  are 
among  the  Gentiles."  As  we  have  seen,  the 
settlement  is  as  far  from  that  of  Mark  and  the 
Pauline  churches  on  the  one  side,  as  from 
the  thoroughgoing  legalism  of  Jerusalem  on 
the  other.  As  late  as  the  Pastoral  Epistles 
abstinence  from  "meats  which  God  created 
to  be  received  with  thanksgiving  by  them  that 
believe  and  know  the  truth"  is  to  the  Pauline 
churches  a  "doctrine  of  devils  and  seducing 
spirits"  taught  "through  the  hypocrisy  of 
men  that  speak  lies."  Distinctions  of  meats 
belong  to  Jewish  superstition,  because  "every 
creature  of  God  is  good  and  nothing  is  to  be 
rejected,  if  it  be  received  with  thanksgiving" 
(1st  Tim.  iv.  1-5).  Mark,  as  we  have  seen, 
takes  precisely  this  standpoint.  He  is  equally 
radical  in  condemning  distinctions  of  meats 
as  essentially  "vain  worship,"  and  a  "com- 
mandment of  men"  (Mark  vii.  1-23).  In 
truth  if  we  distinguish  one  of  Luke's  sources 


THE  PETRINE  TRADITION        177 

from  Luke  himself  we  shall  find  exactly  this 
doctrine  taught  to  Peter  himself  by  special 
divine  revelation  in  Acts  x.  10-16;  xi.  3-10. 
Only,  as  we  have  already  seen  (p.  59,  note), 
this  is  not  the  application  made  by  the  Book 
of  Acts,  as  it  now  stands,  of  the  material.  To 
'  Luke '  nothing  could  be  more  repugnant  than 
the  idea  of  an  apostle  forsaking  the  religion  of 
his  fathers,  of  which  circumcision  and  "the 
customs"  are  an  essential  part.  His  can- 
cellation, in  the  story  of  Peter's  revelation 
and  the  Apostle's  subsequent  defence  of  it 
before  the  church  in  Jerusalem,  of  one  of  its 
essential  factors,  viz.  the  right  to  eat  with 
Gentiles,  regardless  of  man-made  distinctions 
of  meats  ("what  God  hath  cleansed  make 
not  thou  common")  is  quite  as  significant  as 
his  restriction  of  even  Paul's  activity  to 
Greek-speaking  Jews,  until  "the  Spirit"  has 
expressly  directed  the  church  in  Antioch, 
immediately  after  the  persecution  of  Agrippa 
I,  to  proceed  with  the  propaganda.  Both 
alterations  of  the  earlier  form  of  the  story  are 
in  line  with  a  multitude  of  minor  indications, 
and  furnish  us,  in  combination  with  them,  the 
real  keynote  of  the  narrative.  In  Luke-Acts 
more  clearly  than  in  any  of  the  gospels  the 
writer  assumes  the  distinctive  function  of 
the  historian.  He,  too,  would  relate,  like 
Mark,  the  origin  of  the  Christian  faith,  and 
that  "from  the  very  first."  He  even  deduces 
the  pedigree  of  Jesus  from  "Adam,  which  was 
the  son  of  God."  But  the  object  is  far  more 


178      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

to  prove  the  pedigree  of  the  faith  than  the 
pedigree  of  Jesus.  Christianity  is  to  be 
defended  against  the  charge  of  being  a  nova 
super stitio,  a  religio  illicita.  On  the  contrary 
it  is  the  one  true  and  revealed  religion,  the 
perfect  flower  and  consummation  of  Judaism. 
Yet  it  is  not,  like  Judaism,  particularistic 
and  national,  but  universal;  for  while  God  at 
first  made  that  nation  the  special  repository 
of  His  truth,  it  was  His  "determinate  fore- 
knowledge and  counsel"  that  they  should 
reject  and  crucify  their  Messiah,  making  it 
possible  to  "proclaim  this  salvation  unto 
the  Gentiles."  The  one  thing  Luke  is  so 
anxiously  concerned  to  prove  that  he  wearies 
the  reader  with  constant  reiteration  of  it, 
proclaims  it,  argues  it,  in  season  and  out  of 
season,  with  his  sources,  against  his  sources, 
with  the  facts,  against  the  facts,  is  that  this 
faith  was  never,  never,  offered  to  the  Gentiles 
except  by  express  direction  of  God  and  after 
the  Jews  had  demonstrated  to  the  last  ex- 
tremity of  stiff-necked  opposition  that  they 
would  have  none  of  it.  Christianity,  then, 
and  not  Judaism,  is  the  true  primitive  and 
revealed  religion,  the  heir  of  all  the  divine 
promises. 

We  can  see  now  why  Luke  finds  it  impossi- 
ble to  adopt  Mark's  story  of  a  missionary 
journey  of  Jesus  in  "the  coasts  of  Tyre  and 
Sidon"  and  will  not  even  mention  the  name  of 
Csesarea  Philippi.  His  method  in  omitting 
Mark  vi.  45 — viii.  26  is  more  radical  than  Mat- 


THE  PETRINE  TRADITION        179 

thew's,  but  his  motive  is  similar.  The  central 
theme  of  this  portion  of  Mark  appears  in  the 
chapter  (ch.  vii.)  recording  Jesus'  repudiation 
of  the  Jewish  distinctions  of  clean  and  unclean 
as  "precepts  of  men,"  and  departing  to  heal 
and  preach  in  Phoenicia  and  Decapolis.  This 
is  the  theme  of  Luke's  second  treatise;  and, 
as  we  have  seen,  his  solution  of  the  problem 
is  radically  different.  If  he  cannot  admit 
that  even  Paul  disregarded  "the  customs" 
or  Peter  preached  to  Gentiles  until  after  ex- 
press and  reiterated  direction  of  "the  Spirit," 
we  surely  ought  not  to  expect  him  to  admit 
the  statement  that  Jesus  repudiated  the  dis- 
tinctions of  Mosaism,  declared  "all  meats 
clean,"  and  departing  into  the  coasts  of  Tyre 
and  Sidon  first  healed  the  daughter  of  "a 
Gentile  "  and  afterward  continued  His  journey 
"through  Sidon"  and  "the  regions  of  Deca- 
polis," repeating  the  symbolic  miracles  of 
opening  deaf  ears  and  blind  eyes,  and  feeding 
with  loaves  and  fishes.  Even  if  this  sup- 
posed ministry  of  Jesus  among  the  Gentiles 
stood  on  a  much  stronger  foundation  of 
historical  probability  than  is  unfortunately 
the  case  (cf.  Rom.  xv.  8),  it  could  not 
logically  be  admitted  to  the  work  of  Luke 
without  an  abandonment  of  one  of  his  firmest 
convictions  and  a  rewriting  of  both  his 
treatises. 

Luke  was  probably  not  the  first  to  divide 
his  work  into  a  "former  treatise"  covering 
"both"  the  sayings  and  doings  of  Jesus 


180      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

"until  the  time  that  He  was  taken  up,"  and 
a  second  devoted  to  the  work  of  the  apostles 
after  they  had  received  the  charge  to  proclaim 
the  gospel  "to  the  uttermost  parts  of  the 
earth."  "Many,"  as  he  tells  us,  had  already 
undertaken  to  "draw  up  narratives"  (die- 
geses)  of  this  kind,  of  which  the  one  Luke 
himself  has  chiefly  employed,  had  originally, 
as  we  concluded,  a  sequel  like  his  own  Book 
of  Acts.  There  are  even  features  of  the 
Petrine  source  of  Acts  which  particularly 
connect  it  with  Roman  doctrine  (e.  g.  Acts 
x.  10-15;  cf.  Rom.  xiv.  14  and  Mark  vii. 
18  /.)  and  even  with  the  person  of  Mark 
(Acts  xii.  12).  Its  balance  between  Peter 
and  Paul  and  its  close  with  the  establishment 
of  Christianity  at  Rome,  are  also  suggestive 
that  the  greater  part  of  Luke's  second  treatise 
came  ultimately  from  the  same  source  as  his 
first.  But  the  division  of  the  work  into  two 
parts:  (1)  the  gospel  among  the  Jews;  (2) 
the  gospel  among  the  Gentiles,  would  have 
followed,  independently  of  any  such  prece- 
dent, from  the  whole  purpose  and  structure  of 
the  work.  Christianity  is  to  be  proved  in  the 
light  of  its  origin,  and  in  spite  of  the  hostility 
of  the  Jews  among  whom  it  arose,  and  whose 
sacred  writings  it  adopts,  to  be  the  original, 
true,  revealed  religion.  To  prove  this  it  must 
be  shown  that  the  rejection  and  crucifixion 
of  Jesus  by  His  own  people  as  a  result  of  His 
earthly  ministry  was  due  not  to  His  own 
failure  to  meet  the  ideal  of  the  Scriptures 


THE  PETRINE  TRADITION        181 

in  question,  but  to  their  perversity  and  wilful 
blindness.  If  it  is  important  to  prove  in 
the  former  treatise  that  the  opposition  of 
the  controlling  authorities  among  the  Jews 
was  due  to  this  perversity  and  jealousy,  it 
is  at  least  equally  so  to  show  that  the  lowly 
and  devout  received  Him  gladly.  Hence  the 
peculiar  hospitality  of  Luke  toward  material 
showing  Jesus'  acceptance  of  and  by  the 
humbler  and  the  outcast  classes,  the  poor  and 
lowly,  women,  Samaritans,  publicans,  and 
sinners.  The  idyllic  scenes  of  His  birth  and 
childhood  are  cast  among  men  and  women 
of  this  type  of  Old  Testament  piety,  quietly 
"waiting  for  the  kingdom  of  God."  During 
His  career  it  is  these  who  receive  and  hang 
upon  Him.  Even  on  Calvary  one  of  the  thieves 
must  join  with  this  throng  of  devout  and  peni- 
tent believers.  Jesus'  preaching  begins  with 
His  rejection  by  His  own  fellow-townsmen 
only  because  "no  prophet  is  accepted  in  his 
own  country";  though  before  their  attempt 
to  slay  Him  He  proves  from  Scripture  how 
Elijah  and  Elisha  had  been  sent  unto  the 
Gentiles.  His  ministry  ends  with  His  demon- 
stration to  the  disciples  after  His  resurrection 
from  "Moses  and  all  the  prophets"  how  that 
"it  was  needful  that  the  Christ  should  suffer 
before  entering  His  glory,"  and  that  after  His 
rejection  by  Israel  "repentance  and  remission 
of  sins  should  be  preached  in  His  name  among 
all  nations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem." 
The  second  treatise  shows  how  this  purpose 


182      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

of  God  to  secure  the  dissemination  of  the  true 
faith  by  the  disobedience  and  hardening  of 
its  first  custodians  was  accomplished,  chief 
stress  being  always  laid  upon  the  fact  that  it 
was  only  when  the  Jews  "contradicted  and 
blasphemed"  that  the  apostles  said,  "It 
was  necessary  that  the  word  of  God  should 
first  be  spoken  to  you,  but  seeing  ye  put  it 
from  you,  and  judge  yourselves  unworthy 
of  eternal  life,  lo,  we  turn  to  the  Gentiles." 
There  is  no  interest  taken  in  the  subsequent 
fortunes  of  Jerusalem  and  Jewish  Christianity, 
nor  even  in  the  fate  of  Peter  and  James,  after 
this  transition  has  been  effected  to  Gentile 
soil.  There  is  no  interest  taken  in  the  spread 
of  Christianity  as  such,  in  Egypt,  Ethiopia, 
Cyrenaica,  Cyprus,  Mesopotamia;  but  only 
where  the  conflict  rages  over  the  respective 
claim  of  Jew  and  Gentile  to  be  the  true  heir 
of  the  promises,  i.  e.  the  mission-field  of  Paul. 
At  the  individual  centres  the  story  goes  just 
far  enough  to  relate  how  the  gospel  was  offered 
to  the  Jews  and  rejected,  compelling  with- 
drawal from  the  synagogue,  and  thereafter 
it  is  told  over  again  with  slight  variations  at 
the  next  centre.  The  book  concludes  with 
a  repetition  of  the  stereotyped  scene  at  Rome 
itself,  in  spite  of  the  representation  of  the  very 
source  employed,  that  an  important  church 
had  long  existed  there  before  Paul's  coming, 
ending  with  a  quotation  of  the  classic  passage 
from  Isa.  vi.  9  /.  to  prove  God's  original 
purpose  to  harden  the  heart  of  Israel,  so  that 


THE  PETRINE  TRADITION        183 

His  "salvation  might  be  sent  unto  the  Gen- 
tiles." The  very  fate  of  Paul  himself  has  so 
little  interest  for  Luke  in  comparison  with 
this  demonstration  of  Christianity  as  the  one 
original,  revealed  religion,  enclosed  in  Judaism 
as  seeds  are  confined  in  the  hardening  seed- 
pod  until  disseminated  by  its  bursting,  that  he 
leaves  it  unmentioned,  like  that  of  all  other 
leaders  of  the  church  whose  death  was  not 
directly  contributory  to  the  process. 

Many,  and  vitally  important  to  the  devel- 
opment of  Gospel  Story  as  we  know  it,  as  were 
the  sources  of  Luke,  both  by  his  own  state- 
ment (Luke  i.  1)  and  the  internal  evidences 
of  his  work,  he  has  made  analysis  extremely 
difficult  by  the  skilful  and  elaborate  stylistic 
embroidery  with  which  he  has  overlaid  the 
gaps  and  seams.  Nor  is  this  a  proper  occasion 
for  entering  the  field  of  the  higher  critic. 
Luke-Acts  represents  the  completed  develop- 
ment, not  the  naive  beginnings  of  this  type  of 
the  Literature  of  the  Church  Teacher.  We 
have  seen  reason  to  think  we  may  have  traces 
of  the  earlier  "narratives"  (diegeses)  to  which 
Luke  refers,  not  only  in  the  great  Roman  work 
of  Mark,  but  in  a  part  of  the  Q  material  itself. 
If  Antioch  were  the  place  of  origin  of  this 
early  source,  if  here  too  were  found  those 
archives  of  missionary  activity  whence  came 
the  famous  Diary  employed  in  Acts  xvi.- 
xxviii.,  the  contribution  of  this  church  to 
Gospel  Story  was  such  as  to  make  Antioch  the 
appropriate  centre  for  the  great  "historical" 


184      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

school  of  interpretation  of  the  fourth  and 
fifth  centuries.  When  we  consider  the 
dominant  motive  of  Luke  and  his  extraor- 
dinary exaltation  of  'apostolic'  authority  we 
seem  to  be  breathing  the  very  atmosphere 
of  Ignatius  the  great  apostle  of  ecclesiasticism 
and  apostolic  order,  discipline,  and  succession. 
Ignatius'  hatred  of  Doketism,  too,  is  not 
without  a  certain  anticipation  in  the  opening 
and  closing  chapters  of  Luke's  Gospel,  and 
perhaps  in  the  fact  that  the  great  exsection 
from  Mark  begins  with  the  story  of  the  Walk- 
ing on  the  Sea  (Mark  vi.  45-52). 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  JOHANNINE   TRADITION.      PROPHECY 

IN  Paul's  enumeration  of  the  "gifts"  by 
which  the  Spirit  qualifies  various  classes  of 
men  to  build  in  various  ways  upon  the  struc- 
ture of  the  church,  the  class  of  "prophets" 
takes  the  place  next  after  that  of  "apostles," 
a  rank  even  superior  (as  more  manifestly 
*  spiritual')  to  that  of  "pastors  and  teachers." 
The  Book  of  Acts  shows  us  as  its  most 
conspicuous  centre  of  "prophecy"  the  house 
of  Philip  the  Evangelist  at  Csesarea.  This 
man  had  four  unmarried  daughters  who 
prophesied,  and  in  his  house  Paul  received  a 
'prophetic'  warning  of  his  fate  from  a 
certain  Agabus  who  had  come  down  from 
Judaea.  There  were  also  prophets  in  Antioch 
(Acts  xiii.  1),  though  the  only  ones  mentioned 
by  name  are  this  same  Agabus  *  and  Silas,  or 
Silvanus,  who  is  also  from  Judsea.  In  the 
Teaching  of  the  Twelve  the  *  prophet'  still 
appears  among  the  regular  functionaries  of 
the  church,  for  the  most  part  a  traveller  from 

1  The  mention  of  Agabus,  however,  in  xi.  27  /.  is  hardly 
consistent  with  xiii.  1  and  xxi.  10-14.     It  seems  to  be  due 
to  the  editorial  recasting  of  xi.  22-30. 
185 


186      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

place  to  place,  and  open  to  more  or  less 
suspicion,  as  is  the  case  at  Rome,  where 
Hernias  combines  reverence  for  the  "angel" 
that  speaks  through  the  true  prophet,  with 
warnings  against  the  self-seeker.  In  1st  John 
the  "false  prophets"  are  a  serious  danger, 
propagating  Doketic  heresy  wherever  they  go. 
In  fact,  this  heresy  was,  as  we  know,  the  great 
peril  in  Asia.  However,  Asia,  if  plagued  by 
wandering  false  prophets,  had  also  become  by 
this  time  a  notable  seat  of  true  and  authentic 
prophecy;  for  the  same  Papias  who  shows 
such  sympathy  with  Polycarp  against  those 
who  were  "perverting  the  Sayings  of  the 
Lord  to  their  own  lusts,"  and  had  turned,  as 
Polycarp  advised,  "to  the  tradition  handed 
down  from  the  beginning,"  had  similar  means 
for  counteracting  those  who  "denied  the 
resurrection  and  judgment."  Among  those 
upon  whom  he  principally  relied  as  exponents 
of  the  apostolic  doctrine  were  two  of  those 
same  prophesying  daughters  of  Philip  the 
Evangelist,  who  with  their  father  had  migrated 
from  Csesarea  Palestina  to  Hierapolis,  leaving, 
however,  one,  who  had  married,  a  resident  till 
her  death  at  Ephesus.  As  late  as  the  time  of 
Montanus  (150-170),  the  "Phrygians"  traced 
their  succession  of  prophets  and  prophetesses 
back  to  Silvanus  and  the  daughters  of  Philip. 
We  cannot  be  sure  that  the  traditions 
Papias  reported  from  these  prophetesses  were 
derived  at  first  hand,  though  it  is  not  im- 
possible that  Papias  himself  may  have  seen 


THE  JOHANNINE  TRADITION      187 

them.  However  it  is  certain  that  many  of 
his  traditions  of  'the  Elders'  had  to  do  with 
eschatology,  and  aimed  to  prove  the  material 
and  concrete  character  of  the  rewards  of  the 
kingdom;  for  we  have  several  examples  of 
these  traditions,  attributing  to  Jesus  apocry- 
phal descriptions  of  the  marvellous  fertility 
of  Palestine  in  the  coming  reign  of  Messiah, 
and  particularizing  about  the  abodes  of  the 
blessed.  Moreover  Eusebius  blames  Papias 
for  the  crude  ideas  of  Irenaeus  and  other 
second  century  fathers  who  held  the  views 
called  "chiliastic"  (i.  e.  based  on  the  "thou- 
sand" year  reign  of  Christ  in  Rev.  xx.  2  /.). 
We  also  know  that  Papias  defended  the 
"trustworthiness"  of  Revelation,  a  book 
which  served  as  the  great  authority  of  the 
"chiliasts"  for  the  next  fifty  years  in  their 
fight  against  the  deniers  of  the  resurrection. 
He  quoted  from  it,  in  fact,  the  passage  above 
referred  to;  so  that  if  reason  must  be  sought 
for  his  placing  "John  and  Matthew"  together 
at  the  end  of  his  list  of  seven  apostles  instead 
of  in  their  usual  place,  it  is  probably  because 
they  were  his  ultimate  apostolic  authorities 
for  the  "word  of  prophecy"  and  for  the 
"commandment  of  the  Lord"  respectively. 
Justin  Martyr,  Papias'  contemporary  at 
Rome,  though  converted  in  Ephesus,  and 
unquestionably  determined  in  his  mould  of 
thought  by  Asiatic  Paulinism,  has,  like 
Papias,  but  two  authorities  for  his  gospel 
teaching:  (1)  the  commandment  of  the  Lord 


188      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

represented  in  the  Petrine  and  Matthsean 
tradition;  (2)  prophecy,  represented  in  the 
Christian  continuation  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment gift.  This  second  authority,  however, 
is  not  appealed  to  without  the  support  of 
apostolicity.  Revelation  is  quoted  as  among 
"our  writings,"  like  "the  memorabilia  of 
the  apostles  called  Gospels,"  but  not  without 
the  additional  assurance  that  the  seer  was 
"John,  one  of  the  apostles  of  Christ." 

For  *  prophecy,'  however  acclimated  else- 
where, was  in  its  origin  distinctively  a  Pales- 
tinian product.  Its  stock  in  trade  was  Jewish 
eschatology  as  developed  in  the  long  succes- 
sion of  writers  of  *  apocalypse5  since  Daniel 
(165  B.C.).  Of  the  nature  of  this  curious  and 
fantastic  type  of  literature  we  have  seen  some 
examples  in  2nd  Thessalonians  and  the  Synop- 
tic eschatology  (Mark  xiii.  =Matt.  xxiv.  = 
Luke  xxi.) .  More  can  be  learned  by  comparing 
the  contemporary  Jewish  writings  of  this  type 
known  as  2nd  Esdras  and  the  Apocalypse  of 
Baruch.  Older  examples  are  found  in  the 
prophecies  and  visions  purporting  to  come 
from  Enoch.  For  apocalypse  became  the 
successor  of  true  prophecy  in  proportion  as 
the  loss  of  Israel's  separate  national  existence 
and  the  enlargement  of  its  horizon  compelled 
it  to  make  its  messianic  hopes  transcendental, 
and  its  notion  of  the  Kingdom  cosmic.  Hence 
comes  all  the  phantasmagoria  of  allegorical 
monsters,  spirits,  and  demons,  the  great  con- 
flict no  longer  against  Assyria  and  Babylon, 


THE  JOHANNINE  TRADITION      189 

but  a  war  of  the  powers  of  light  and  darkness, 
heaven  and  hell.  Yet  all  centres  still  upon 
Jerusalem  as  the  ultimate  metropolis  of  the 
world,  whose  empires,  now  given  over  to  the 
leadership  of  Satan,  will  soon  lie  prostrate 
beneath  her  feet. 

Some  such  eschatology  of  divine  judgment 
and  reward  is  an  almost  necessary  comple- 
ment to  the  legalistic  type  of  religion.  If 
Christianity  be  conceived  as  a  system  of  com- 
mandments imposed  by  supernatural  author- 
ity it  must  have  as  a  motive  for  obedience  a 
system  of  supernatural  rewards  and  punish- 
ments. Not  merely,  then,  because  for  cen- 
turies the  legalism  of  the  scribes  had  actually 
had  its  corresponding  development  of  apoc- 
alypse, with  visions  of  the  great  judgment 
and  Day  of  Yahweh,  but  because  of  an  inher- 
ent and  necessary  affinity  between  the  two, 
"Judaea"  continued  to  be  the  home  of  *  pro- 
phecy '  in  New  Testament  times  also. 

However,  the  one  great  example  of  this  type 
of  literature  that  has  been  (somewhat  re- 
luctantly) permitted  to  retain  a  place  in  the 
New  Testament  canon  appears  at  first  blush 
to  be  clearly  and  distinctively  a  product  of 
Ephesus.  Of  no  book  has  early  tradition  so 
clear  and  definite  a  pronouncement  to  make 
as  of  Revelation.  Since  the  time  of  Paul  the 
Jewish  ideas  of  resurrection  provoked  opposi- 
tion in  the  Greek  mind.  The  Greek  readily 
accepted  immortality,  but  the  crudity  of 
Jewish  millenarianism,  with  its  return  of  the 


190      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

dead  from  the  grave  for  a  visible,  concrete 
rule  of  Messiah  in  Palestine  repelled  him. 
The  representation  of  Acts  xvii.  32  is  fully 
borne  out  by  the  constant  effort  of  Paul  in  his 
Greek  epistles  to  remove  the  stumbling-blocks 
of  this  doctrine.  It  is  no  surprise,  then,  to  find 
the  'prophecy'  of  Revelation,  and  more 
particularly  its  doctrine  of  the  thousand-year 
reign  of  Messiah  in  Jerusalem,  a  subject  of 
dispute  at  least  since  Melito  of  Sardis  (167), 
and  probably  since  Papias  (145).  Fortu- 
nately controversy  brought  out  with  unusual 
definiteness,  and  from  the  earliest  times,  posi- 
tive statements  regarding  the  origin  of  the 
book.  Irenseus  (186)  declared  it  a  work  of  the 
Apostle  John  given  him  in  vision  "in  the  end 
of  the  reign  of  Domitian."  The  same  date 
(93),  may  be  deduced  from  statements  of 
Epiphanius  regarding  the  history  of  the 
church  in  Thyatira.  Justin  Martyr  (153),  as 
we  have  seen,  vouches  for  the  crucial  passage 
(Rev.  xx.  2/.)  as  from  "one  of  ourselves,  John, 
an  apostle  of  the  Lord."  Papias  (145)  vouched 
for  its  orthodoxy  at  least,  if  not  its  authen- 
ticity. There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt 
that  it  came  to  be  accepted  in  Asia  early  in 
the  second  century,  in  spite  of  opposition, 
as  representing  the  authority  of  the  Apostle 
John,  and  as  having  appeared  there  c.  95. 
In  fact,  there  is  no  book  of  the  entire  New 
Testament  whose  external  attestation  can 
compare  with  that  of  Revelation,  in  nearness, 
clearness,  definiteness,  and  positiveness  of 


THE  JOHANNINE  TRADITION      191 

statement.  John  is  as  distinctively  the  father 
of  *  prophecy'  in  second-century  tradition 
as  Matthew  of  'Dominical  Precepts'  and 
Peter  of  'Narratives.' 

Moreover  the  book  itself  purports  to  be 
written  from  Patmos,  an  island  off  the  coast 
of  Asia.  It  speaks  in  the  name  of  "John" 
as  of  some  very  high  and  exceptional  author- 
ity, well  known  to  all  the  seven  important 
churches  addressed,  the  first  of  which  is 
"Ephesus."  By  its  references  to  local  names 
and  conditions  it  even  proves,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  all  the  most  eminent  modern  schol- 
ars, that  it  really  did  see  the  light  for  the  first 
time  (at  least  for  the  first  time  in  its  present 
form)  in  Ephesus  not  far  from  A.D.  95. 

One  would  think  the  case  for  apostolic 
authenticity  could  hardly  be  stronger.  And 
yet  no  book  of  the  New  Testament  has  had 
such  difficulty  as  this,  whether  in  ancient  or 
modern  times,  to  maintain  its  place  in  the 
canon.  It  must  also  be  said  that  no  book  gives 
stronger  internal  evidence  of  having  passed 
through  at  least  two  highly  diverse  stages  in 
process  of  development  to  its  present  form. 

The  theory  of  "another  John"  is  indeed 
comparatively  modern.  Nobody  dreamed  of 
such  a  solution  until  Dionysius  of  Alexandria 
hesitatingly  advanced  the  conjecture  in  his 
controversy  with  Nepos  the  Chiliast.  Even 
then  (c.  250)  Dionysius  (though  he  must  have 
known  the  little  work  of  Papias)  could  think 
of  no  other  John  at  Ephesus  than  the  Apostle, 


192      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

unless  it  were  perhaps  John  Mark!  It  is 
Eusebius  who  joyfully  helps  him  out  with  the 
discovery  in  Papias  of  "John  the  Elder." 
But  Eusebius  himself  is  candid  enough  to 
admit  that  Papias  only  quoted  "traditions 
of  John"  and  "mentioned  him  frequently 
in  his  writings."  When  we  read  Papias' 
own  words,  though  they  are  cited  by  Eusebius 
for  the  express  purpose  of  proving  the  debat- 
able point,  it  is  obvious  that  they  prove 
nothing  of  the  kind,  but  rather  imply  the 
contrary,  viz.  that  John  the  Elder,  though  a 
contemporary  of  Papias,  was  not  accessible, 
but  known  to  him  only  at  second  hand,  by 
report  of  travellers  who  "came  his  way."  In 
short,  as  we  have  seen,  "Aristion  and  John 
the  Elder"  were  the  surviving  members  of 
a  group  of  'apostles,  elders  and  witnesses 
of  the  Lord'  in  Jerusalem.  If,  then,  one 
chose  to  attribute  the  'prophecies'  of  Rev. 
iv.-xxi.  to  this  Elder  there  could  be  no  serious 
objections  on  the  score  of  doctrine,  for  the 
"traditions  of  John"  reported  by  Papias 
were  not  lacking  in  millenarian  colour.  Only, 
it  is  not  the  'prophecies'  of  Rev. iv.-xxi.  which 
contain  the  references  to  "John,"  but  the 
enclosing  prologue  and  epilogue;  and  these 
concern  themselves  with  the  churches  of  Asia 
as  exclusively  as  the  'prophecies'  with  the 
quarrel  of  Jerusalem  with  Rome. 

The  second  century  is,  as  we  have  seen, 
unanimous  in  excluding  from  consideration 
any  other  John  in  Asia  save  the  Apostle,  and 


THE  JOHANNINE  TRADITION      193 

if  the  writer  of  Rev.  i.  and  xxii.  produced  this 
impression  in  all  contemporary  minds  without 
exception,  including  even  such  as  opposed  the 
book  and  its  doctrine,  it  is  superlatively 
probable  that  such  was  his  intention.  The 
deniers  of  the  resurrection  and  judgment  did 
not  point  out  to  Poly  carp,  Papias,  Justin, 
Melito,  and  Caius,  that  they  were  confusing 
two  Johns,  attributing  the  work  of  a  mere 
Elder  to  the  Apostle.  They  plumply  declared 
the  attribution  to  John  fictitious;  and  since 
the  internal  evidence  from  the  condition  of  the 
churches  and  growth  of  heresy  in  chh.  i.-iii. 
and  the  imperial  succession  down  to  Domitian 
in  chh.  xiii.  and  xvii.  strongly  corroborate  the 
date  assigned  in  antiquity  (c.  93),  we  have  no 
alternative,  if  we  admit  that  the  Apostle 
John  had  long  before  been  "killed  by  the 
Jews," x  but  to  suppose  that  this  book,  like 
nearly  all  the  books  of  'prophecy,'  is,  indeed, 
pseudonymous.  It  does  not  follow  that  he 
who  assumes  the  name  of  "John"  in  prologue 
and  epilogue  (i.  I/.,  4,  9;  xxii.  8)  to  tell  the 
reader  definitely  who  the  prophet  is,  was 
guilty  of  intentional  misrepresentation.  If 
anything  can  be  made  clear  by  criticism  it  is 
clear  that  the  prophecies  were  not  his  own. 
They  were  taken  from  some  nameless  source. 
The  "pseudonymity"  consists  simply  in 
clothing  a  conjecture  with  the  appearance  of 
indubitable  fact. 

But  why  should  a  writer  who  wished  to 

1  See  above,  p.  104. 


194     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

clothe  with  apostolic  authority  the  'prophe- 
cies' he  was  promulgating,  not  assume 
boldly  the  title  of  "apostle,"  as  the  author 
of  2nd  Peter  has  done  in  adapting  similarly 
the  Epistle  of  Jude?  Why,  if  he  assumes 
the  name  of  the  martyred  Apostle  John  at  all, 
does  he  refrain  from  saying,  "I  John,  an 
apostle,  or  disciple  of  the  Lord,"  and  content 
himself  with  the  humbler  designation  and 
authority  of  'prophet'? 

This  question  brings  us  face  to  face  with 
the  most  remarkable  structural  phenomena  of 
the  book,  and  cannot  be  understandingly 
answered  until  we  have  considered  them. 

The  outstanding  characteristic  of  Revela- 
tion is  its  adaptation  of  literary  material  deal- 
ing with,  and  applicable  to,  one  historical  and 
geographical  situation,  to  another  situation 
almost  completely  different.  The  opening 
chapters,  devoted  to  "John's"  vision  on 
Patmos  and  the  conditions  and  dangers  of 
the  seven  Churches  of  Asia,  employ  indeed 
some  of  the  expressions  of  the  substance  of 
the  book.  The  promises  of  the  Spirit  to  the 
churches  recall  the  glories  of  the  New  Jeru- 
salem of  the  concluding  vision  of  the  seer. 
There  is  some  reference  to  local  persecution  at 
Smyrna  incited  by  the  Jews  ("a  synagogue 
of  Satan")  and  which  is  to  last  "ten  days," 
and  there  is  an  isolated  reference  to  a  martyr- 
dom of  days  long  gone  by  in  the  message  to 
the  church  in  Pergamum  (ii.  13)  recalling 
remotely  the  blood  and  suffering  of  which  the 


THE  JOHANNINE  TRADITION      195 

body  of  the  work  is  full.  This  we  should 
of  course  expect  from  an  adapter  of  existing 
*  prophecies.'  But  the  converse,  i.  e.  con- 
sideration for  the  historical  conditions  of 
Ephesus  and  its  sister  churches,  on  the  part 
of  the  body  of  the  work,  is  absolutely  wanting. 
On  the  one  side  is  the  situation  of  the  Pauline 
churches  on  the  east  coast  of  the  ^Egean  in 
A.D.  93-95.  The  prologue  and  epilogue  (Rev. 
i.  iii.  and  xxii.  6-21)  are  concerned  with  these 
churches  of  Asia,  and  their  development  in  the 
faith,  particularly  their  growth  in  good  works, 
purity  from  defilements  of  the  world,  and 
resistance  to  the  inroads  of  heretical  teaching. 
The  message  of  the  Spirit,  conveyed  through 
"John,"  is  meant  to  encourage  the  members 
of  these  churches  to  pure  living  in  the  face  of 
temptations  to  worldliness  and  impurity. 
The  epistles  to  the  churches,  in  a  word,  belong 
in  the  same  class  with  the  Pastorals,  Jude, 
and  2nd  Peter,  as  regards  their  object  and 
the  situation  confronted;  though  they  are 
written  to  enclose  apocalyptic  visions  which 
deal  with  a  totally  different  situation. 

The  visions,  on  the  contrary,  take  not  the 
smallest  notice  of  (proconsular)  Asia  and  its 
problems.  Their  scene  is  Palestine,  their 
subject  the  outcome  of  Jerusalem's  agonizing 
struggle  against  Rome.  From  the  moment 
the  threshold  of  iv.  1  is  crossed  there  is  no 
consciousness  of  the  existence  of  such  places 
as  Ephesus,  Smyrna,  and  Thyatira.  The 
scenes  are  Palestinian.  The  great  battle-field 


196      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

is  Har-Magedon  (i.  e.  city  of  Megiddo,  on  the 
plain  of  Esdraelon,  the  scene  of  Josiah's 
overthrow,  2nd  Kings  xxiii.  29  /.).  "The 
city,"  "the  great  city,"  "the  holy  city"  is 
Jerusalem;  though  "spiritually  (in  allegory) 
it  is  called  Sodom  and  Egypt"  (i.  e.  a  place 
from  which  the  saints  escape  to  avoid  its 
doom).  When  the  saints  flee  from  the  oppres- 
sion of  the  dragon  it  is  to  "the  wilderness." 
When  the  invading  hordes  rush  in  it  is  from 
beyond  "the  Euphrates."  When  the  re- 
deemed appear  in  company  with  the  Christ 
it  is  on  Mount  Zion;  they  constitute  an  army 
of  144,000,  twelve  thousand  from  each  of 
the  twelve  tribes.  Two  antagonistic  powers 
are  opposed.  On  the  one  side  is  Jerusalem 
and  its  temple,  now  given  over  to  the  Gen- 
tiles to  be  trodden  under  foot  forty  and  two 
months,  on  the  other  is  Rome,  no  longer,  as 
with  Paul,  a  beneficent  and  protecting  power, 
but  the  city  of  the  beast,  Babylon  the  great 
harlot,  at  whose  impending  judgment  the 
Gentiles  will  mourn,  but  all  the  servants  of 
God  rejoice.  Jerusalem  rebuilt,  glorified,  the 
metropolis  of  the  world,  seat  and  residence  of 
God  and  his  Christ,  will  take  the  place  of 
Rome,  the  seat  of  the  beast  and  the  false 
prophet.  The  gates  of  this  New  Jerusalem  will 
stand  open  to  receive  tribute  from  all  the  Gen- 
tile nations,  and  will  have  on  them  the  names 
of  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.  The  founda- 
tions of  the  city  wall  will  have  on  them  "the 
names  of  the  twelve  apostles  of  the  Lamb." 


THE  JOHANNINE  TRADITION      197 

All  this  is  cumulative  proof  that  the  horizon 
of  the  seer  of  Rev.  iv.-xx.  is  that  of  Palestine. 
Its  expansion  in  the  introductory  Letters  of 
the  Spirit  to  the  Churches  to  include  the 
seven  churches  of  (pro-consular)  Asia,  is  as 
limited  in  its  way  as  the  original.  The  later 
writer  merely  adds  the  special  province  where 
he  wishes  the  'prophecy'  to  circulate,  with 
its  special  interests;  there  is  no  real  inter- 
relation of  the  two  parts. 

It  is  a  problem  of  great  complexity  to 
disentangle  the  various  strands  of  this  strange 
and  fantastic  work,  certain  as  it  is  that  we 
have  here  a  conglomerate  whose  materials 
come  from  various  periods.  Some  elements, 
such  as  ch.  xi.  on  the  fate  of  Jerusalem,  seem 
to  date  in  part  from  before  70;  others,  such  as 
ch.  xviii.  on  the  fate  of  Rome,  show  that  while 
originally  composed  for  the  circumstances  of 
the  reign  of  Vespasian  or  Titus,  the  time  has 
been  extended  to  take  in  at  least  the  begin- 
ning of  that  of  Domitian.1  The  author  rests 
mainly  upon  the  Hebrew  apocalyptic  proph- 
ets, such  as  Ezekiel,  Daniel,  and  Enoch,  but  he 
has  not  been  altogether  inhospitable  to  such, 
originally  Gentile  mythology  as  the  doctrine 
of  the  seven  spirits  of  God,  and  the  conflict 
of  Michael  and  his  angels  with  the  dragon. 
He  intimates  himself  that  his  prophesying 
had  not  been  confined  to  one  period  or  one 
people  (x.  11).  When  he  translates  the 
"Hebrew"  name  of  the  angel  of  the  abyss, 

1  Note  the  addition  of  an  "eighth"  emperor  in  ver.  11. 


198      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

"Abadden,"  into  its  Greek  equivalent  (ix.  11), 
or  uses  Hebrew  numerical  equivalents  for  the 
letters  of  the  name  of  a  man  (xiii.  18),  it  is 
not  difficult  to  guess  that  this  prophecy  had 
at  least  its  origin  in  Palestine.  In  fact,  there 
is  no  other  country  where  the  geographical 
references  hold  true,  and  no  other  period  save 
that  shortly  after  the  overthrow  of  Jerusalem 
by  Titus,  that  affords  the  historical  situation 
here  presupposed,  when  worshipping  "the 
beast  and  his  image"  is  demanded  of  the 
saints  by  the  earthly  ruler  (Domitian),  and 
the  overthrow  of  the  seven-hilled  city  by  one 
of  its  own  rulers  in  league  with  lesser  powers 
is  looked  forward  to  as  about  to  avenge  the 
sufferings  inflicted  on  the  Jews.  As  regards 
this  hope  of  the  overthrow  of  Rome,  we  know 
that  the  legend  of  Nero's  prospective  return 
at  the  head  of  hosts  of  Parthian  enemies  to 
recapture  his  empire  gained  currency  in  Asia 
Minor  in  Domitian's  reign,  and  this  legend 
is  certainly  developed  in  Rev.  xiii.  and  xvii. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  author,  if  he  ever  came 
to  Asia,  did  not  cease  to  be  a  Palestinian  Jew. 
He  operates  exclusively  (after  iv.  1)  with  the 
materials  and  interests  of  Jewish  and  Jewish- 
Christian  apocalypse.  He  has  no  interest 
whatever  in  the  churches  of  Asia.  He  does  not 
betray  by  one  syllable  a  knowledge  even  of 
their  existence,  to  say  nothing  of  their  dan- 
gers, their  heresies,  their  temptations.  He 
does  make  it  abundantly  clear  that  he  is  a 
Christian  prophet  (x.  7-11),  and  (to  us)  al- 


THE  JOHANNINE  TRADITION      199 

most  equally  clear  that  he  is  not  one  of  the 
twelve  apostles  whose  names  he  sees  written 
on  the  foundation-stones  of  the  New  Jeru- 
salem (xxi.  14).  But  since  his  prophecy,  with 
all  its  heterogeneous  elements  had  to  do  with 
the  final  triumph  of  Messiah,  and  the  estab- 
lishment of  His  kingdom,  after  the  overthrow 
of  the  power  of  Satan — since  it  depicted  "the 
time  of  the  dead  to  be  judged,  and  the  time  to 
give  their  re  ward  to  Thy  servants  the  prophets, 
and  to  the  saints  and  to  them  that  fear  Thy 
name,"  it  could  not  fail  to  be  welcomed  by 
orthodox  Christians  in  (proconsular)  Asia. 
For  the  churches  of  Asia  were  engaged  at  this 
time  in  a  vigorous  struggle  against  the  hereti- 
cal deniers  of  the  resurrection  and  judgment. 
Only,  a  mere  anonymous  prophecy  from 
Palestine  could  not  obtain  any  authoritative 
currency  in  Asia.  To  be  accepted,  even 
among  the  orthodox,  some  name  of  apostolic 
weight  must  be  attached  to  it,  as  we  see  in  the 
case  of  the  two  Epistles  of  Peter  and  those  of 
James  and  Jude.  The  Epistles  of  the  Spirit 
to  the  churches  are,  then,  as  truly  "letters 
of  commendation"  as  though  they  introduced 
a  living  prophet  and  not  merely  a  written 
prophecy.  The  John  whom  they  present  is 
not  called  an  apostle  for  the  very  simple 
reason  that  the  visions  themselves  every- 
where refer  to  their  recipient  as  a  'prophet.' 
The  author  of  the  prologue  and  epilogue 
does  not  disregard  the  language  of  his  mate- 
rial. As  we  have  seen,  he  carefully  weaves  its 


200      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

phraseology  into  the  'letters.'  So  with  his 
insertion  of  the  name  "John."  It  occurs 
nowhere  but  in  i.  1  /.,  4,  9  and  xxii.  8  /. 
All  these  passages,  but  especially  xxii.  8  /., 
are  based  upon  xix.  96,  10,  adding  nothing 
to  the  representation  but  the  name  "John" 
and  the  location  "Patmos."  In  fact,  xxii.  6-9 
reproduces  xix.  9  /.,  for  the  most  part  ver- 
batim, although  it  is  clearly  insupposable 
that  the  seer  of  the  former  passage  should 
represent  himself  as  offering  a  second  time  to 
worship  the  angel,  and  as  receiving  again 
exactly  the  same  rebuke  he  had  received  so 
shortly  before.  He  who  calls  himself  "John" 
in  xxii.  8  is,  therefore,  not  the  prophet  of 
xix.  10.  The  epilogue  itself  has  apparently 
received  successive  supplements,  and  the 
prologue  its  prefix;  but  he  who  inserts  the 
name  John  has  done  so  with  caution.  He 
may  not  have  intended  to  leave  open  the 
ambiguity  found  by  Dionysius  and  Eusebius 
between  the  Apostle  and  the  Elder,  as  a  refuge 
in  case  of  accusation,  but  he  has  at  least  been 
careful  not  to  transgress  the  limits  of  the 
text  he  reproduces.  The  seer  spoke  of  him- 
self as  a  "prophet"  writing  from  the  midst 
of  great  tribulation,  about  the  kingdom  to 
follow  to  those  that  endured.  He  had  said 
that  he  received  "true  words  of  God"  from 
an  angel  who  declared  "I  am  a  fellow  servant 
with  thee  and  with  thy  brethren  that  hold 
the  testimony  of  Jesus"  (i.  e.  the  confession  of 
martyrdom).  The  prologue,  accordingly,  de- 


THE  JOHANNINE  TRADITION      201 

scribes  "John"  as  a  servant  of  Jesus,  who 
received  from  an  angel  the  word  of  God  and 
the  testimony  of  Jesus  (i.  1  /.).  He  is  a  brother 
and  partaker  in  the  tribulation  and  kingdom 
and  endurance  which  are  in  Jesus.  When 
he  comes  to  Asia  it  is  "for  the  word  of  God 
and  the  testimony  of  Jesus."  The  spot  whence 
he  issues  his  prophetic  message  is  not  located 
in  Ephesus,  or  in  any  city  where  the  residents 
could  say,  "But  the  Apostle  John  was  never 
among  us."  He  resides  temporarily  (as  a 
prisoner  in  the  quarries?)  in  the  unfrequented 
island  of  Patmos.  Thence  he  could  be 
supposed  to  see  "in  the  Spirit"  the  condition 
of  affairs  in  the  churches  of  Asia  without 
inconvenient  questions  as  to  when,  and  how, 
and  why. 

We  may  think,  then,  of  this  book  of 
*  prophecy'  as  brought  forth  in  the  vicinity 
of  Ephesus  near  "the  end  of  the  reign  of 
Domitian"  (95).  But  only  the  enclosing 
letters  to  the  churches,  and  the  epilogue 
guaranteeing  the  contents,  originate  here  at 
this  time.  The  'prophecies,'  occupied  as 
they  are  exclusively  with  the  rivalry  of 
Jerusalem  and  Rome,  and  the  judgment  to 
be  executed  for  the  former  upon  her  ruthless 
adversary,  bear  unmistakable  marks  of  their 
Palestinian  origin,  not  only  in  the  historical 
and  geographic  situations  presupposed,  but 
in  the  "defiant"  Hebraisms  of  the  language, 
and  the  avowed  translations  from  "the 
Hebrew."  They  are  an  importation  from 


202     MAKING  OF  NEW    TESTAMENT 

Palestine  like  "the  sound  words,  even  the 
words  of  the  Lord  Jesus"  referred  to  in  the 
Pastorals.  The  churches  of  Asia  are  feeling 
the  need  of  apostolic  authority  against  the 
deniers  of  the  resurrection  and  the  judgment, 
as  much  as  against  the  perverters  of  the 
Lord's  words.  Such  centres  as  the  homes 
of  the  prophesying  daughters  of  Philip  at 
Ephesus  and  Hierapolis  were  even  more 
abundantly  competent  to  supply  this  demand 
than  the  other.  Agabus  will  not  have  been 
the  only  Judsean  prophet  who  visited  them, 
especially  after  the  "great  tribulation"  which 
befell  "those  in  Judaea."  There  is  nothing 
foreign  to  the  habit  of  the  times,  even  in 
Christian  circles,  if  'nameless  prophecies' 
from  such  a  source  are  translated,  edited, 
and  given  out  under  cover  of  commendatory 
epistles  written  in  the  name  of  "John"  at 
a  time  when  John  had  indeed  partaken  both 
of  the  tribulation  and  of  the  kingdom  of 
Jesus.  They  would  hardly  have  obtained 
currency  had  they  not  been  attributed  to  an 
apostle;  for  a  denial  of  the  apostolicity  of 
this  book  has  always  deprived  it  of  authority. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  actual  (Palestinian) 
prophet  has  no  such  exalted  opinion  of  him- 
self as  of  those  whose  names  he  sees  written  on 
the  foundation  of  the  walls  of  the  New  Jeru- 
salem (xxi.  14).  He  is  not  an  apostle  and 
does  not  claim  to  be.  He  shows  not  the 
faintest  trace  of  any  association  with  the 
earthly  Jesus,  and  indeed  displays  a  vindic- 


THE  JOHANNINE  TRADITION      203 

tiveness  toward  the  enemies  of  Israel  that 
has  more  of  the  spirit  of  the  imprecatory 
psalms  than  the  spirit  of  Jesus.  He  thinks 
of  Jesus  as  a  king  and  judge  bestowing 
heavenly  rewards  upon  the  martyrs  in  a 
manner  quite  inconsistent  with  his  rebuke  of 
James  and  John  (Mark  x.  40).  It  is  a  far  cry 
indeed  from  this  to  apostleship  and  personal 
intimacy  with  Jesus. 

The  chief  value  of  Revelation  to  the  student 
of  Christian  origins  is  that  by  means  of  its 
clearly  determinable  date  (Ephesus,  93-95) 
he  can  place  himself  at  a  point  of  vantage 
whence  to  look  not  only  around  him  at  the 
conditions  of  the  Pauline  churches  as  de- 
picted in  the  letters,  vexed  with  growing 
Gnostic  heresy  and  moral  laxity,  but  also 
both  back  and  forward.  The  backward 
glance  shows  Palestine  emerging  from  the 
horrors  of  the  Jewish  war,  filled  with  bitter- 
ness against  Rome,  held  down  under  hateful 
tyranny  and  longing  for  vengeance  upon  the 
despot  with  his  "names  of  blasphemy"  and 
his  demands  of  worship  for  "the  image  of 
the  beast"  (emperor- worship).  Here  Jewish 
apocalyptic  (as  in  2nd  Esdras)  and  Christian 
'prophecy'  are  closely  in  accord.  Indeed 
a  considerable  part  of  the  material  of  Rev. 
iv.-xxi.,  especially  in  chh.  xi-xii.  is  ultimately 
of  Jewish  rather  than  Christian  origin.  What 
the  development  of  Christian  *  prophecy' 
was  in  Palestine  from  apostolic  times  until 
the  scattering  of  the  church  of  "the  apostles 


204      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

and  elders"  after  the  war  of  Bar  Cocheba 
(135),  we  can  only  infer  from  the  kindred 
Jewish  apocalypses  and  the  chiliastic  "tradi- 
tions of  the  Elders"  quoted  by  Irenaeus 
from  Papias.  A  forward  look  from  our 
vantage  point  in  Ephesus  c.  A.D.  95,  shows 
the  effects  of  the  Palestinian  importation  ex- 
tending down  from  generation  to  generation, 
first  in  the  long  chiliastic  controversy  against 
the  Doketic  Gnostics,  including  Montanist 
'prophecy';  secondly,  in  the  growth  of  a 
claim  to  apostolic  succession  from  John. 

(1)  In  the  chiliastic  controversy  for  a  cen- 
tury the  chief  bones  of  contention  are  the  (non- 
Pauline)  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
flesh  (so  the  Apostles'  Creed  and  the  second- 
century  fathers),  and  that  of  a  visible  reign 
of  Christ  for  a  thousand  years  in  Jerusalem. 
The  new  form  of  resurrection-gospel  which 
at  about  this  time  begins  to  take  the  place 
of  the  apostolic  of  1st  Cor.  xv.  3-11,  centring 
upon  the  emptiness  of  the  sepulchre  and  the 
tangibility  and  food-consuming  functions  of 
'Jesus' '  resurrection  body,  instead  of  the 
"manifestations"  to  the  apostles,  is  char- 
acteristic of  this  struggle  against  the  Greek 
disposition  to  spiritualize.  Luke  and  Ignatius 
represent  the  attitude  of  the  orthodox, 
Ignatius'  opponents  that  of  those  who  denied 
that  Jesus  was  "in  the  flesh  after  his  resur- 
rection." Revelation,  like  the  "traditions  of 
the  Elders,"  champions  the  visible  kingdom 
of  Messiah  in  Jerusalem. 


THE  JOHANNINE  TRADITION      205 

(2)  In  the  effort  for  apostolic  authority 
the  writings  which  came  ultimately  to  rep- 
resent Asian  orthodoxy  have  all  been 
brought  under  the  name  and  authority  of 
the  Apostle  John,  although  for  many  decades 
after  the  appearance  of  Revelation,  Paul, 
and  not  John,  remains  the  apostolic  authority 
to  which  appeal  is  made,  and  although  the 
writings  themselves  were  originally  anony- 
mous. There  was,  indeed,  a  contributory 
cause  for  the  growth  of  this  tradition  in  the 
accidental  circumstance  that  a  Palestinian 
Elder  from  whom  Papias  derived  indirect, 
and  Polycarp  in  all  probability  direct,  tradi- 
tions, bore  also  the  name  of  John,  and  sur- 
vived until  A.D.  117.  Still,  the  main  reason 
why  this  particular  apostolic  name  was 
ulitmately  placed  over  the  Gospel  and  Epistles 
of  Ephesian  Christendom,  can  only  have  been 
its  previous  adoption  to  cover  the  compilation 
of  Palestinian  'prophecies'  of  A.D.  95. 


PART  IV 

THE   LITERATURE  OF   THE  THEOLOGIAN 

CHAPTER  IX 

THE   SPIRITUAL   GOSPEL  AND   EPISTLES 

ASIA,  as  we  have  come  to  know  it  through 
a  succession  of  writings  dating  from  Colos- 
sians-Ephesians  (c.  62)  down  to  Papias 
(145),  had  come  to  be  the  chief  scene  of 
mutual  reaction  between  'apostolic'  and 
Pauline  Christianity  at  the  close  of  the  first 
century.  Here  at  Ephesus  had  been  the 
great  headquarters  of  Paul's  missionary 
activity.  Here  he  had  reasoned  daily  in  the 
school  of  one  Tyrannus,  a  philosopher,  and 
had  found  "many  adversaries."  Here  he 
had  encountered  the  "strolling  Jews,  exor- 
cists," and  had  secured  the  destruction  of 
an  immense  mass  of  books  of  magic.  Here, 
according  to  Acts,  he  predicted  the  inroads 
of  heresy  after  his  "departure,"  and  here  the 
succeeding  literature  abundantly  witnesses 
the  fulfilment  of  the  prediction.  Ephesians 
and  Colossians  begin  the  series,  the  Pastoral 
Epistles  (c.  90)  continue  it.  Then  follow 

206 


THE  SPIRITUAL  GOSPEL          207 

the  'letters  to  the  churches'  of  Revelation 
(95)  and  the  Ignatian  Epistles  (110-117), 
not  to  mention  those  whose  origin  is  uncertain, 
such  as  Jude  and  2nd  Peter. 

The  Pastorals  already  make  it  apparent 
that  even  the  Pauline  churches  are  not  exempt 
from  the  inevitable  tendency  of  the  age  to 
fall  back  upon  authority.  The  very  sublimity 
of  Paul's  consciousness  of  apostolic  inspiration 
made  it  the  harder  for  the  next  generation  to 
assert  any  for  itself.  Moreover  heresy  was 
growing  apace.  If  even  the  outward  pressure 
of  persecution  tended  to  drive  the  churches 
together  in  brotherly  sympathy,  still  more 
indispensable  would  appear  the  need  of 
traditional  standards  to  maintain  the  "type 
of  sound  doctrine,"  "the  faith  once  for  all 
delivered  to  the  saints."  Without  such  it 
would  be  impossible  to  check  the  individual- 
ism of  errorists  who  took  Paul's  sense  of 
personal  inspiration  and  mystical  insight  as 
their  model,  without  Paul's  sobriety  of  critical 
control  under  the  standard  of  "the  law  of 
Christ."  It  is  no  surprise,  then,  to  find  even 
at  the  headquarters  of  Paulinism  early  in 
the  second  century  a  sweeping  tendency  to 
react  toward  the  'apostolic'  standards.  In 
particular,  as  Gnostic  exaggeration  of  the 
Pauline  mysticism  led  continually  further 
toward  disregard  of  the  dictates  of  common 
morality,  and  a  wider  divergence  from  the 
Jewish  conceptions  of  the  world  to  come, 
it  was  natural  that  men  like  Polycarp  and 


208      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Papias  should  turn  to  the  Matthsean  and 
Petrine  tradition  of  the  Lord's  oracles,  and 
to  the  Johannine  'prophecies'  regarding  the 
resurrection  and  judgment. 

Had  nothing  intervened  between  Gnostics 
and  reactionaries  the  most  vital  elements  of 
Paul's  gospel  might  well  have  disappeared, 
even  at  this  great  headquarters  of  Paulinism. 
The  Doketists,  with  their  exaggerated  Hellen- 
istic mysticism,  were  certainly  not  the  true 
successors  of  Paul.  They  showed  an  almost 
contemptuous  disregard  for  the  historic  Jesus, 
a  one-sided  aim  at  personal  redemption,  by 
mystic  union  of  the  individual  soul  with 
the  Christ-spirit,  to  the  disregard  of  "the 
law  of  Christ,"  even  in  some  cases  of  common 
morality.  Paul  was  characterized  by  a 
splendid  loyalty  to  personal  purity,  to  the 
social  ideal  of  the  Kingdom,  and  to  the  unity 
of  the  brotherhood  in  the  spirit  of  reciprocal 
service.  On  the  other  hand  men  like  the 
author  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  Ignatius  and 
Polycarp,  with  their  almost  panic-stricken 
resort  to  the  authority  of  the  past,  were  not 
perpetuating  the  true  spirit  of  the  great 
Apostle.  Their  reliance  was  on  ecclesiastical 
discipline,  concrete  and  massive  miracle  in 
the  story  of  Jesus,  particularly  on  the  point 
of  the  bodily — or,  as  they  would  have  said, 
the  "fleshly" — resurrection.  Their  concep- 
tion of  his  recorded  "word,"  made  of  them 
a  fixed,  superhuman  standard  and  rule,  a 
"new  law."  Teachers  of  this  type,  much  as 


THE  SPIRITUAL  GOSPEL          209 

they  desired  and  believed  themselves  to  be 
perpetuating  the  "sacred  deposit"  of  Paul, 
were  in  reality  conserving  its  form  and  missing 
its  spirit.  Such  men  would  gladly  "turn 
to  the  tradition  handed  down,"  of  the  Mat- 
thsean  Sayings,  and  the  Petrine  Story.  But  in 
the  former  they  would  not  find  reflections  of 
the  sense  of  sonship.  They  would  find  only 
a  supplementary  Law,  a  new  and  higher  set 
of  rules.  In  the  story  they  would  not  discover 
the  Pauline  view  of  the  pre-existent  divine 
Wisdom  tabernacling  in  man,  producing  a 
second  Adam,  as  elder  brother  of  a  new  race, 
the  children  and  heirs  of  God.  They  would 
take  the  mysticism  of  Paul  and  bring  it  down 
to  the  level  of  the  man  in  the  street.  Jesus 
would  be  to  them  either  a  completely  super- 
human man,  approximating  the  heathen 
demi-god,  a  divinity  incognito;  or  else  a  man 
so  endowed  with  "the  whole  fountain  of  the 
Spirit"  as  to  exercise  perpetually  and  un- 
interruptedly all  its  miraculous  functions. 
The  story  of  the  cross  would  be  hidden 
behind  the  prodigies. 

Least  of  all  could  the  importation  of 
apocalyptic  prophecy  do  justice  to  the  Pauline 
doctrine  of  the  'last  things.'  True,  Paul  is 
himself  a  'prophet,'  thoroughly  imbued  with 
the  fantastic  Palestinian  doctrines.  He,  too, 
believes  in  a  world-conflict,  a  triumph  of  the 
Messiah  over  antichrist.  More  particularly 
in  one  of  his  very  earliest  epistles  (2nd 
Thessalonians)  we  get  a  glimpse  into  these  Jew- 


210      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

ish  peculiarities.  But  these  are  always  coun- 
terbalanced in  Paul  by  a  wider  and  soberer 
view,  which  tends  more  and  more  to  get  the 
upper  hand.  His  doctrine  of  spiritual  union 
with  Christ,  present  apprehension  of  "the 
life  that  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God,"  a  doctrine 
of  Greek  rather  than  Hebrew  parentage,  pre- 
vails over  the  imagery  of  Jewish  apocalypse. 
In  the  later  epistles  he  expects  rather  to 
"depart  and  be  with  Christ"  than  to  be 
"caught  up  into  the  air"  with  those  that  are 
alive  and  remain  at  the  *  Coming.'  So  even 
if  Paul  did  have  occasion  again  and  again 
to  defend  his  Jewish  resurrection-doctrine 
against  the  Greek  disposition  to  refine  it 
away  into  a  mere  doctrine  of  immortality, 
his  remedy  is  not  a  mere  falling  back  into 
the  crudities  of  Jewish  millenarianism.  Least 
of  all  could  he  have  sympathized  with  the 
nationalistic,  and  even  vindictive  spirit  of 
Rev.  iv.-xxi.,  with  its  great  battle  of  Jeru- 
salem helped  by  Messiah  and  the  angels, 
against  Rome  helped  by  Satan  and  the 
Beast.  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  "body"  by  "clothing"  of  the  spirit 
with  a  "tabernacle"  derived  "from  heaven," 
his  hope  of  a  messianic  Kingdom  which  is 
the  triumph  of  humanity  under  a  "second 
Adam,"  has  its  apocalyptic  traits.  It  is  a  vic- 
tory over  demonic  enemies,  "spiritual  hosts  of 
wickedness  in  the  heavenly  places  " ;  but  it  has 
the  reserve  of  an  educated  Pharisee  against 
the  cruder  forms  of  Jewish  prophecy.  It 


THE  SPIRITUAL  GOSPEL          211 

shows  the  mind  of  the  cosmopolitan  Roman 
citizen  and  philosophic  thinker,  not  merely 
that  of  the  Jewish  Zealot. 

How  salutary  if  Paul  himself  could  have 
lived  to  control  the  divergent  elements  among 
his  churches,  to  check  the  subjective  in- 
dividualism of  the  Gnostics  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  reactionary  tendencies  of  the  orthodox 
on  the  other.  His  parting  words  to  his 
beloved  Philippians  are  sadly  appreciative 
of  how  needful  it  was  for  their  sake  that  he 
should  "abide  in  the  flesh"  (Phil.  i.  24). 
Yet  there  was  one  thing  still  more  expedient — 
that  he  should  abide  with  them  in  the  spirit. 
And  that  is  just  what  we  find  evidenced  in 
the  great  'spiritual*  Gospel  and  its  accom- 
panying Epistles  from  Ephesus. 

Debate  still  rages  over  a  mere  name, 
attached  by  tradition  to  these  writings  that 
themselves  bear  no  name.  The  titles  pre- 
fixed by  early  transcribers  attribute  them  to 
"John."  But  they  are  never  employed 
before  175-180  in  a  way  to  even  remotely 
suggest  that  they  were  then  regarded  as 
written  by  John,  or  even  as  apostolic  in  any 
sense.  And  when  we  trace  the  tradition  back 
to  its  earliest  form,  in  the  Epilogue  attached 
to  the  Gospel  (John  xxi.)  it  seems  to  be  no 
more  than  a  dubious  attempt  to  identify 
that  mysterious  figure,  the  "disciple  whom 
Jesus  loved."  If,  however,  we  postpone  this 
question  raised  by  the  Epilogue,  the  writings 
can  at  least  be  assigned  to  a  definite  locality 
(Ephesus)  and  a  fairly  definite  date  (c.  105- 


212      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

110),  with  the  general  consent  both  of  ancient 
tradition  and  of  modern  criticism.  This  is 
for  us  the  important  thing,  since  it  enables 
us  to  understand  their  purpose  and  bearing; 
whereas  even  those  who  contend  that  they 
were  written  by  the  Apostle  John  can  make 
little  use  of  the  alleged  fact.  For  (1)  the  little 
that  is  known  of  John  from  other  sources  is 
completely  opposed  to  the  characteristics  of 
these  writings.  They  are  characterized  by  a 
broad  universalism,  and  reproduce  the  mysti- 
cism of  Paul.  To  attribute  them  to  the  Pillar 
of  Gal.  ii.  9,  or  the  Galilean  fisherman  of  Mark 
i.  19  and  ix.  38,  it  becomes  necessary  to  sup- 
pose that  John  after  migrating  to  Ephesus 
underwent  a  transformation  so  complete  as  to 
make  him  in  reality  another  man.  (2)  The 
meagre  possibility  that  the  basis  of  Rev- 
elation might  represent  the  Apostle  John  be- 
comes more  remote  than  ever.  Now  it  is 
a  curious  fact  that  critics  who  hold  to  the 
much-disputed  tradition  that  the  Apostle 
John  wrote  the  Gospel  and  Epistles,  although 
these  writings  make  no  such  claim,  and  have 
no  affinity  with  the  known  character,  show  as 
a  rule  remarkable  alacrity  to  dismiss  the 
claims  of  Revelation,  which  positively  declares 
John  to  have  been  its  author,  and  has  far 
stronger  evidence,  both  internal  and  external, 
in  support  of  the  claim,  than  have  either 
the  Gospel  or  the  Epistles.  We  may  prefer 
the  style  and  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  and 
Epistles,  but  this  playing  fast  and  loose  with 


THE  SPIRITUAL  GOSPEL          213 

the  evidence  can  only  discredit  criticism  of  this 
type.  (3)  The  value  of  the  demonstration  of 
Johannine  authorship  would  lie  in  the  fact 
that  we  should  then  have  a  first-hand  witness 
to  the  actual  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus, 
immeasurably  superior  to  the  remote  and 
indirect  tradition  of  the  present  Synoptic 
sources.  But  as  a  matter  of  real  fact  those 
who  maintain  the  Johannine  authorship  do 
not  venture  to  assert  any  such  historical  supe- 
riority. On  the  contrary  they  consider  the 
Synoptic  tradition  not  only  historically  supe- 
rior to  "John,"  as  respects  both  sayings  and 
course  of  events,  but  they  are  apt  to  attribute 
to  this  Galilean  apostle  an  extreme  of  Philonic 
abstraction,  so  that  he  even  prefers  deliberate 
"fiction"  to  fact.  Thus  the  reasoning  em- 
ployed to  defend  the  tradition  destroys  the 
only  factor  which  could  give  it  value. 

On  the  other  hand  it  is  possible  to  disregard 
these  secondary  disputes,  which  aim  only  to 
increase  or  diminish  the  authority  of  the 
writings  by  asserting  or  denying  that  they 
were  written  by  the  Apostle  John,  and  to 
approach  the  interpretation  of  them  on  the 
basis  only  of  what  is  really  known,  accredited 
both  by  ancient  tradition  and  by  modern 
criticism.  On  this  basis  we  can  safely  affirm 
that  they  originated  in  Ephesus  early  in  the 
second  century,  *  spiritualizing '  what  we  have 
designated  'apostolic'  teaching,  while  at  the 
same  time  strongly  reacting  against  Doketic 
and  Antinomian  heresy.  By  such  a  procedure 


214      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

we  shall  be  employing  modern  critical  meth- 
ods to  the  highest  practical  advantage  in  the 
interest  of  genuinely  historical  interpretation. 
Even  those  who  find  minute  distinctions  in 
style  and  point  of  view  between  the  Epistles 
and  Gospel  of  John  will  admit  that  all  four 
documents  emanate  from  the  same  period, 
situation,  and  circumstances,  and  represent 
the  same  school  of  thought.  We  shall  make 
no  serious  mistake,  then,  if  we  treat  them  as 
written  by  the  same  individual,  and  even  as 
intended  to  accompany  one  another.  We 
shall  have  the  example  of  so  high  an  authority 
as  Lightfoot,  who  considered  1st  John  an 
Epilogue  composed  to  accompany  the  Gospel 
in  place  of  the  present  Epilogue  (John  xxi.). 
Moreover  the  distinctions  in  the  ancient  treat- 
ment of  1st  John  and  the  two  smaller  Epistles 
are  all  subsequent  to  the  attribution  of  the 
Gospel  and  First  Epistle  to  the  Apostle,  and 
a  consequence  of  it.  For  1st  John  and  the 
Gospel  had  always  been  inseparable,  and  hav- 
ing no  name  attached  could  easily  be  treated 
as  the  Apostle's.  But  2nd  and  3rd  John 
distinctly  declare  themselves  written  by  an 
"Elder";  and  in  the  days  when  men  still 
appreciated  the  distinction  between  an  Elder 
and  an  Apostle  it  was  felt  to  be  so  serious  a 
difficulty  that  2nd  and  3rd  John  were  put  in 
the  class  of  "disputed"  writings.  In  reality 
1st  John  and  the  Gospel  are  just  as  certainly 
the  work  of  an  "Elder"  as  2nd  John  and  3rd 
John,  though  no  declaration  to  that  effect  is 


THE  SPIRITUAL  GOSPEL          215 

made.  Moreover  1st  John  and  the  Gospel 
may  safely  be  treated  as  from  the  same  author; 
for  such  minute  differences  as  exist  in  style 
and  point  of  view  can  be  fully  accounted  for 
by  the  processes  of  revision  the  Gospel 
has  demonstrably  undergone.  This  is  more 
reasonable  than  to  imagine  two  authors  so 
extraordinarily  similar  to  one  another  and 
extraordinarily  different  from  everybody  else. 
"The  Elder"  does  not  give  his  name,  and  it 
is  hopeless  for  us  to  try  to  guess  it,  though  it 
was  of  course  well  known  to  his  "beloved" 
friend  "Gaius,"  to  whom  the  third  letter  (the 
outside  envelope)  was  addressed.  We  have 
simply  three  epistles,  one  (3rd  John)  personal, 
to  the  aforesaid  Gaius,  who  is  to  serve  as 
the  writer's  intermediary  with  "the  church," 
because  Diotrephes,  its  bishop,  violently 
opposes  him.  Another  (2nd  John)  is  ad- 
dressed to  a  particular  church  ("the  elect 
lady  and  her  children"),  in  all  probability 
the  church  of  Diotrephes  and  Gaius.  It  may 
be  the  letter  referred  to  in  3rd  John  9.  The 
third  (1st  John)  is  entirely  general,  not  even 
so  much  modified  from  the  type  of  the  homily 
toward  that  of  the  epistle  as  Hebrews  or 
James;  for  it  has  neither  superscription  nor 
epistolary  close.  And  yet  it  is,  and  speaks  of 
itself  (i.  4;  ii.  1,  7,  9,  12-14,  etc.)  as  a  literary 
product.  It  is  not  impossible  that  this  group 
of  *  epistles,'  one  individual,  one  to  a  particu- 
lar church,  one  general,  was  composed  after 
the  plan  of  the  similar  group  addressed  by 


216      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

Paul  to  churches  of  this  same  region,  Phile- 
mon, Colossians,  and  the  more  general  epistle 
known  to  us  as  Ephesians.  They  may  have 
been  intended  to  accompany  and  introduce 
the  Gospel  written  by  the  same  author,  just  as 
the  prophecies  of  Rev.  iv.-xxi.  are  introduced 
by  the  *  epistles'  of  Rev.  i-iii.,  or  as  Luke- 
Acts  is  sent  under  enclosure  to  Theophilus 
for  publication  under  his  patronage.  At  all 
events,  be  the  connection  with  the  Gospel 
closer  or  more  remote,  to  learn  anything  really 
reliable  about  the  writer  and  his  purpose  and 
environment  we  must  begin  with  his  own 
references  to  them,  first  in  the  letter  to  Gaius, 
then  in  that  to  "the  elect  lady  and  her  child- 
ren," then  in  his  'word  of  exhortation'  to 
young  and  old,  of  1st  John.  Thus  we  shall 
gain  a  historical  approach  finally  to  that 
treatise  on  the  manifestation  of  God  in 
Christ  which  has  won  Him  the  title  since 
antiquity  of  the  'theologian.' 

Third  John  shows  the  author  to  be  a  man 
of  eminence  in  the  (larger  ?)  church  whence  he 
writes,  old  enough  to  speak  of  Gaius  with 
commendation  as  one  of  his  "children," 
though  Gaius  himself  is  certainly  no  mere 
youth,  and  eminent  enough  to  call  Diotrephes 
to  answer  for  his  misconduct.  He  has  sent 
out  evangelistic  workers,  some  of  whom  have 
recently  returned  and  borne  witness  "before 
the  church"  to  their  hospitable  reception  by 
Gaius.  For  this  he  thanks  Gaius,  and  urges 
him  to  continue  the  good  work.  The  main 


THE  SPIRITUAL  GOSPEL         217 

object  of  the  letter,  however,  is  to  commend 
Demetrius,  who  is  doubtless  the  bearer  of  this 
letter  as  well  as  another  written  "to  the 
church"  (2nd  John?).  This  letter,  the  author 
fears,  will  never  reach  its  destination  if 
Diotrephes  has  his  way.  There  is  very  little 
to  indicate  whence  the  opposition  of  Diotre- 
phes arises,  but  what  little  there  is  (ver.  11) 
points  to  those  who  make  claims  to  "seeing" 
God  and  being  "of"  Him,  without  adequate 
foundation  in  a  life  of  purity  and  beneficence. 
The  letter  "to  the  church"  is  more  explicit. 

Second  John  is  perfectly  definite  in  its 
purpose.  After  congratulating  the  "elect 
lady"  on  those  of  her  children  (members) 
whom  the  writer  has  found  leading  consistent 
Christian  lives,  he  entreats  the  church  to 
remember  the  "new  commandment"  of 
Jesus,  which  yet  is  not  new  but  the  founda- 
tion of  all,  the  commandment  of  ministering 
love.  The  reason  for  this  urgency  is  that 
"many  deceivers  are  gone  forth  into  the 
world,  even  they  that  confess  not  that  Jesus 
Christ  cometh  in  the  flesh"  (ver.  7).  And 
here  we  come  upon  a  very  novel  and  distinc- 
tive application  of  an  ancient  datum  of 
'prophecy,'  clearly  differentiating  this  writer 
from  the  author  of  Revelation.  The  Doketic 
heresy  is  explicitly  identified  with  "the 
deceiver  and  the  antichrist."  That  must 
have  been  a  new  and  surprising  turn  for  men 
accustomed  to  connect  the  antichrist  idea  with 
the  persecuting  power  of  Rome.  Satan,  as  we 


218      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

know,  had  been  repeatedly  conceived  as 
operating  through  the  coercion  of  outward 
force  brought  against  the  Messiah  and  His 
people  through  the  Beast  and  the  false 
Prophet  (Rev.  xiii.).  There  was  good  author- 
ity, too,  for  a  mystical  "man  of  sin"  setting 
himself  forth  as  God  in  the  temple  (2nd  Thess. 
ii.  4),  or  for  connecting  Daniel's  "abomination 
that  maketh  desolate"  with  the  sufferings 
of  the  Jewish  war  and  the  later  attempts  of 
false  prophets  to  deceive  the  elect  with  lying 
wonders  (2nd  Thess.  ii.  9;  Mark  xiii.  22;  Rev. 
xiii.  14).  But  this  was  a  new  application  of 
the  prophecy.  To  declare  that  the  heretical 
teachers  were  themselves  antichrists  was  to 
call  the  attention  of  the  church  back  from 
outward  opposition  to  inward  disloyalty  as 
the  greater  peril.  And  the  identification  is 
not  enunciated  in  this  general  warning  alone, 
but  fully  developed  and  defended  in  two 
elaborate  paragraphs  of  the  'word  of  exhorta- 
tion' (1st  John  ii.  18-29;  iv.  1-6).  When, 
therefore,  we  find  Poly  carp  in  his  letter  (110- 
171)  quietly  adopting  the  idea,  almost  as  an 
understood  thing,  declaring  "For  every  one 
who  shall  not  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
come  in  the  flesh,  is  antichrist"  (vii.  1),  it 
becomes  almost  a  certainty  that  he  had  read 
1st  John.1 

1  Not  2nd  John;  for  it  is  only  in  1st  John  ii.  18  that  the 
elder  speaks  of  "many  antichrists,"  identifying  each  separate 
Doketist  with  the  apocalyptic  figure.  In  2nd  John  vii.  it 
is  the  heresy  itself  as  a  phenomenon  which  constitutes  the 
antichrist. 


THE  SPIRITUAL  GOSPEL          219 

Our  elder's  warning  "to  the  church"  (per- 
haps more  particularly  its  governing  body)  is 
to  beware  of  these  deceivers;  not  to  receive 
them,  nor  even  to  greet  them,  because  they 
"go  onward"  (are  'progressives')  and  do  not 
"abide  in  the  teaching  of  Christ."  To  abide 
in  this  "teaching"  is  the  church's  only  safe- 
guard. 

If  next  we  turn  to  the  more  general  epistle 
known  as  1st  John  the  lack  of  any  super- 
scription is  more  than  counterbalanced  by 
the  writer's  full  and  explicit  declarations 
regarding  motive  and  occasion.  The  epistle 
was  certainly  intended  to  be  read  before 
entire  congregations.  Of  part  of  it  at  least 
the  author  himself  says  that  it  was  "written 
concerning  them  that  would  lead  you  astray  " 
(ii.  26).  Comparison  of  the  full  denunciation 
with  what  we  know  of  Doketism  from  its 
own  writings,  such  as  the  so-called  Acts  of 
John  (c.  175),  shows  very  plainly  what  type 
of  heresy  is  meant.  Moreover  we  have  the 
Epistles  of  Ignatius,  written  to  these  same 
churches  but  a  few  years  later,  and  the  detailed 
descriptions  of  the  Doketist  Cerinthus  and 
his  doctrines  given  by  Irenaeus,  together 
with  the  explicit  statement  that  the  writings 
of  John  were  directed  against  this  same 
Cerinthus. 

Yet  1st  John  is  far  more  than  a  mere 
polemic.  The  author  writes  to  those  "that 
believe  on  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God,  that 
they  may  know  that  they  have  eternal  life" 


220      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

(v.  13).  This  certainly  is  the  result  of  the 
conscious  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  of  Jesus. 
It  is  not  evidenced,  however,  by  boastful 
words  as  to  illumination,  insight,  and  knowl- 
edge, but  by  practical  obedience  to  the  one 
new  commandment;  for  "  God  is  love,  and  he 
that  loveth  (not  he  that  hath  gnosis)  is  begot- 
ten of  God  and  knoweth  God."  This  inward 
witness  of  the  Spirit  is  a  gift,  or  (to  use 
our  author's  term)  an  "anointing"  (i.  e.  a 
'  Christ '-ening),  whose  essence  is  as  much 
beyond  the  Greek's  ideal  of  wisdom,  on  the 
one  side,  as  it  is  beyond  the  Jew's  ideal  of 
miraculous  powers  on  the  other.  It  is  a 
spirit  of  ministering  love  corresponding  to 
and  emanating  from  the  nature  of  God  Him- 
self. This  is  "the  teaching  of  Christ"  in 
which  alone  it  is  safe  to  "abide." 

But  again  as  respects  the  historic  tradition 
of  the  church  our  author  is  not  less  emphatic. 
He  values  the  record  of  an  actual,  real,  and 
tangible  experience  of  this  manifested  life 
of  God  in  man.  The  "progressives"  may 
repudiate  the  mere  Jesus  of  "the  flesh,"  in 
favour  of  one  who  comes  by  water  only  (i.  e.  in 
the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  in  baptism),  and 
not  by  the  blood  of  the  cross.  For  the 
doctrine  of  the  cross  was  a  special  stumbling- 
block  to  Doketists,  who  rejected  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  bread  and  wine.1  The  actual 

1  In  the  Acts  of  John  the  Christ  spirit  which  had  been 
resident  in  Jesus  comes  to  John  after  he  has  fled  to  a  cave 
on  the  Mount  of  Olives  from  the  posse  that  arrested  the 


THE  SPIRITUAL  GOSPEL 

sending  of  God's  only -begotten  Son  into  the 
world,  the  real  "propitiation"  for  our  sins 
(so  lightly  denied  by  the  illuminati),  is  a  vital 
point  to  the  writer.  The  sins  "of  the  whole 
world"  were  atoned  for  in  Jesus'  blood 
actually  shed  on  Calvary.  The  church  pos- 
sesses, then,  in  this  story  a  record  of  fact 
of  infinite  significance  to  the  world.  The 
Doketists  are  playing  fast  and  loose  with  this 
record  of  the  historic  Jesus.  They  deny  any 
value  to  the  "flesh"  in  which  the  aeon 
Christ  had  merely  tabernacled  as  its  "recep- 
tacle" between  the  period  of  the  baptism  and 
the  ascension — an  event  which  they  date 
before  the  death  on  the  cross.1  They  are  met 
here  with  a  peremptory  challenge  and  declara- 
tion. The  experience  of  contact  with  the 
earthly  Jesus  which  the  Church  cherishes  as 
its  most  inestimable  treasure  is  the  assurance, 
and  the  only  assurance  that  we  have,  of  real 
fellowship  with  the  Father;  for  "the  life,  the 
eternal  life"  of  God  in  man,  the  Logos — to 
borrow  frankly  the  Stoic  expression — is  known 
not  by  mere  mystical  dreams,  but  by  the 
historic  record  of  those  who  personally  knew 
the  real  Jesus.  The  manifestation  of  God,  in 
short,  is  objective  and  historical,  and  not 

Lord.  The  sweet  voice  of  the  invisible  Christ  informs  him 
there  that  the  blinded  multitude  below  had  tortured  a  mere 
bodily  shape  which  they  took  to  be  Christ,  "while  I  stood 
by  and  laughed."  In  the  Gospel  of  Peter  Jesus  hung  upon 
the  cross  "as  one  who  feels  no  pain"  and  was  "taken  up" 
before  the  end. 

1  See  note  preceding. 


222      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

merely  inward  and  self-conscious;  and  that 
outward  and  objective  manifestation  may  be 
summed  up  in  what  we  of  the  Christian 
brotherhood  have  seen  and  known  of 
Jesus. 

It  is  when  we  approach  the  Fourth  Gospel 
by  way  of  its  own  author's  adaptation  of  his 
message  to  the  conditions  around  him  that 
we  begin  to  appreciate  it  historically,  and 
in  its  true  worth.  The  spirit  of  polemic  is 
still  prominent  in  1st  John,  but  the  Gospel 
shows  the  effect  of  opposition  only  in  the 
more  careful  statement  of  the  evangelist's 
exact  meaning.  It  is  a  theological  treatise, 
an  interpretation  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
person  of  Christ,  written  that  the  readers 
"may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God,  and  that  believing  they  may  have 
life  in  His  name"  (xx.  31).  In  an  age  so 
eagerly  bent  on  ascertaining  the  historic  facts 
regarding  Jesus'  life,  and  the  true  sequence 
of  events  (Luke  i.  1-4) ,  it  is  insupposable  that 
an  author  so  strenuous  to  uphold  the  concrete 
reality  of  the  church's  historic  tradition 
should  not  give  real  history  so  far  as  he  was 
able.  He  could  not  afford  to  depreciate  it 
in  the  face  of  Doketic  myth  and  fancy  and 
contempt  for  a  "Christ  in  the  flesh."  The 
idea  that  such  a  writer  could  deliberately 
prefer  fiction  to  fact  is  most  improbable;  ten 
times  more  so  if  he  was  the  only  surviving 
representative  of  the  twelve,  a  Galilean  dis- 
ciple even  more  intimate  than  Peter  with 


THE  SPIRITUAL  GOSPEL          223 

Jesus  from  the  outset.  But  real  history  was 
no  longer  attainable.  The  author  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  reports  no  event  which  he  does 
not  take  in  good  faith  to  be  fact.  Yet  it  must 
be  apparent  from  his  own  statement  of  his 
purpose  as  well  as  from  the  very  structure  of 
the  book  that  he  does  not  aim  to  be  a  his- 
torian, but  an  interpreter  of  doctrine.  He 
aims  to  give  not  fact  but  truth.  And  his 
handling  of  (supposed)  fact  has  the  freedom 
we  should  expect  in  a  church  teacher  of  that 
age,  and  of  the  school  of  Paul  the  mystic. 
The  seven  progressive  "signs"  that  he  nar- 
rates, culminating  in  the  raising  of  Lazarus, 
are  avowedly  (xx.  31)  illustrative  selections 
from  a  multitude  of  current  tales  of  miracle, 
aiming  to  produce  that  faith  in  Jesus  as  the 
Son  of  God  which  will  result  in  "life,"  i.  e. 
the  eternal  life  which  consists  in  His  indwelling 
(1st  John  v.  20).  They  are  not  described  as 
acts  of  pity,  drawn  from  one  with  whom  the 
power  of  God  was  found  present  to  heal. 
Jesus  does  not  yield  as  in  the  Synoptics  when 
compassion  for  trusting  need  overcomes  reluc- 
tance to  increase  the  importunity  that  inter- 
fered with  His  higher  mission.  Their  prime 
purpose  is  to  "manifest  the  glory"  of  the 
incarnate  Logos,  and  Jesus  performs  them 
only  when,  and  as,  He  chooses.  Pity  and 
natural  affection  are  almost  trampled  upon 
that  this  "manifestation  of  His  glory  "  may  be 
made  more  effective  (ii.  4;  iv.  48;  ix.  3;  xi. 
4-6,  15).  As  in  Paul,  there  is  no  exorcism. 


224      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

This  most  typical  and  characteristic  miracle 
of  Petrine  story  (Mark  iii.  15;  Acts  x.  38)  has 
disappeared.  Or  rather  (as  in  Paul)  the  cast- 
ing out  of  Satan  from  his  dominion  over  the 
entire  world  has  transcended  and  superseded 
it  (John  xii.  31-33;  cf.  Col.  ii.  15).  In  John, 
requests  for  miracle,  whether  in  faith  or  un- 
belief, always  incur  rebuke  (ii.  4;  iv.  48; 
vi.  30-36;  vii.  4-7;  xi.  3-15).  Jesus  offers 
and  works  them  when  "His  hour"  comes, 
whether  applied  for  or  not  (v.  6-9;  vi.  6; 
ix.  1-7).  His  reserve  is  not  due  to  a  limitation 
of  almighty  power;  for  the  power  is  declared 
explicitly  to  be  His,  in  His  own  right  (v.  21; 
xi.  22,  25,  42).  He  restrains  it  only  that  faith 
may  rest  upon  conviction  of  the  truth  rather 
than  mere  wonder  (ii.  23-25;  iii.  2/.;  iv.  39- 
42,  48;  vi.  29-46;  xiv.  11).  He  is,  in  short, 
an  omniscient  (i.  47-50;  ii.  25),  omnipotent 
Being,  temporarily  sojourning  on  the  earth 
(iii.  13;  xvi.  28). 

The  dialogue  interwoven  with  these  seven 
signs  is  closely  related  in  subject  to  them. 
It  does  not  aim  to  repeat  remembered  Sayings, 
but  follows  that  literary  form  which  since 
Plato  had  been  the  classic  model  for  present- 
ing the  themes  of  philosophy.  The  subject- 
matter  is  no  longer,  as  in  the  Synoptics,  the 
Righteousness  required  by  God,  the  Nature 
and  Coming  of  the  Kingdom,  Duty  to  God 
and  Man.  It  is  the  person  and  function  of  the 
speaker  himself.  Instead  of  the  parables  we 
have  allegories:  "seven  'I  amV  "  of  Jesus,  in 


THE  SPIRITUAL  GOSPEL          225 

debate  with  "the  Jews"  about  the  doctrine 
of  His  own  person  as  Son  of  God. 

This  uniformity  of  topic  corresponds  with 
a  complete  absence  of  any  attempt  to  differ- 
entiate in  style  between  utterances  of  Jesus, 
or  the  Baptist,  or  the  evangelist  himself,  in 
Gospel  or  Epistles.  Had  the  writer  desired,  it 
is  certain  that  he  could  have  collected  sayings 
of  Jesus,  and  given  them  a  form  similar  to 
those  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  He  does  not  try. 
The  only  device  he  employs  to  suggest  a  dis- 
tinction is  an  oracular  ambiguity  at  first  mis- 
understood, and  so  requiring  progressive  un- 
folding. The  main  theme  is  often  introduced 
by  a  peculiar  and  solemn  "Verily,  verily." 

As  with  the  *  signs'  the  lingering  Synoptic 
sense  of  progress  and  proportion  has  dis- 
appeared. At  the  very  outset  John  the 
Baptist  proclaims  to  his  followers  that  his 
own  baptism  has  no  value  in  itself.  It  is 
not  "for  repentance  unto  remission  of  sins." 
It  is  only  to  make  the  Christ  "manifest" 
(i.  19-34).  Christ's  atonement  alone  will 
take  away  the  sin  (i.  29),  Christ's  baptism 
alone  will  convey  real  help  (i.  34).  Jesus,  too, 
proclaims  Himself  from  the  outset  the  Christ, 
in  the  full  Pauline  sense  of  the  word  (i.  45-51; 
iv.  26,  etc.).  He  chooses  Judas  with  the 
express  purpose  of  the  betrayal,  and  forces 
on  the  reluctant  agents  of  His  fate  (vi.  70  /. ; 
xiii.  26/.;  xviii.  4-8;  xix.  8-11). 

All  this,  and  much  more  which  we  need 
not  cite,  makes  hardly  the  pretence  of  being 


226     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

history.  It  is  frankly  theology,  or  rather 
apologetics.  We  have  as  a  framework  the 
general  outline  of  Mark,  a  Galilean  and  a 
Judsean  ministry  (chh.  i.-xii.;  xiii.-xx.),  with 
traces  of  a  Perean  journey  (vii.  1  ff.).  This 
scheme,  however,  is  broken  through  by 
another  based  on  the  Mosaic  festal  system, 
Jesus  showing  in  each  case  as  He  visits  Jeru- 
salem, the  higher  symbolism  of  the  ceremo- 
nial (ii.  13  ff.  Passover;  v.  Iff.  Pentecost;  vii. 
Iff.  Tabernacles;  x.  22 ff.  Dedication;  xii.  Iff. 
Passover).  There  is  in  chh.  i.-iv.  a  'teaching 
of  baptisms'  and  of  endowment  with  the 
Spirit  corresponding  roughly  to  Mark  i.  1-45. 
There  is  in  ch.  v.  a  teaching  of  the  authority 
of  Jesus  against  Moses  and  the  Law,  corres- 
ponding to  Mark  ii.  1 — iii.  6.  There  is  a 
teaching  of  the  'breaking  of  bread'  corres- 
ponding to  Mark  vi.  30 — viii.  26  in  John  vi., 
though  this  last  has  been  related  not  merely 
to  the  brotherhood  banquet  ('lovefeast')  as 
in  Mark,  but  anticipates  and  takes  the  place 
of  the  teaching  as  to  the  Eucharist  (cf.  John 
vi.  52-59  with  John  xiii.).  There  is  a  Com- 
mission of  the  Twelve  like  Matt.  x.  16-42, 
though  placed  (with  Luke  xxii.  35-38)  as  a 
second  sending  on  the  night  of  betrayal 
(xiii.  31 — xviii.  26).  There  is  dependence  on 
Petrine  Story,  and  to  some  extent  on  Matthsean 
Sayings.  In  particular  John  xii.  1-7  combines 
the  data  of  Mark  xiv.  3-9  with  those  of  Luke 
vii.  36-50;  x.  38-42  in  a  curious  compound, 
making  it  certain  that  the  evangelist  em- 


THE  SPIRITUAL  GOSPEL          227 

ployed  these  two — and  Matthew  as  well,  if  xii. 
8  be  genuine  (it  is  not  found  in  the  ancient 
Syriac).  Yet  our  Synoptic  Gospels  are  not 
the  only  sources,  and  the  material  borrowed  is 
handled  with  sovereign  superiority.  In  short, 
as  even  the  church  fathers  recognized,  this 
Gospel  is  of  a  new  type.  It  does  aim  to 
"supplement"  the  others,  as  they  recognized; 
but  not  as  one  narrative  may  piece  out  and 
complete  another.  Rather  as  the  unseen  and 
spiritual  supplements  the  external  and  visi- 
ble. This  Gospel  uses  the  established  forms 
of  miracle-story  and  saying;  but  it  transforms 
the  one  into  symbol,  the  other  into  dialogue 
and  allegory.  Then  by  use  of  this  material 
(supplemented  from  unknown,  perhaps  oral, 
sources)  it  constructs  a  series  of  interpreta- 
tions of  the  person  and  work  of  the  God-man. 
Of  one  peculiarly  distinctive  feature  we 
have  still  to  speak.  Where  the  reader  has 
special  need  of  an  interpreter  to  attest  and 
interpret  a  specially  vital  fact,  such  as  the 
scenes  of  the  night  of  the  betrayal,  or  the 
reality  of  Jesus'  propitiatory  death  (denied 
by  the  Doketists),  or  the  beginning  of  the 
resurrection  faith,  Peter's  testimony  is  supple- 
mented and  transcended  by  that  of  a  hitherto 
unknown  figure,  who  anticipates  all  that  Peter 
only  slowly  attains.  This  is  the  mysterious, 
unnamed  "disciple  whom  Jesus  loved"  (xiii. 
23  /.;  xviii.  15  /.;  xix.  25-37;  xx.  1-10; 
cf.  Gal.  xx.  20),  a  Paul  present  in  the  spirit, 
to  see  things  with  the  eye  of  spiritual  insight. 


228      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

There  is  no  transfiguration-scene  and  no 
prayer  of  Gethsemane  in  this  Gospel — Trans- 
figuration is  needless  where  the  glory  shines 
uninterrupted  through  the  whole  career. 
Prayer  itself  is  impossible  where  oneness  with 
the  God-head  makes  difference  of  thought  or 
purpose  inconceivable.  Hence  the  prayers  of 
Jesus  are  often  only  "for  the  sake  of  those 
that  stand  by"  (xi.  41  /.).  The  same  is  true 
of  the  Voice  from  heaven  at  the  scene  which 
takes  the  place  of  Transfiguration  and  Geth- 
semane in  one  (xii.  27-33).  Jesus  will  not 
ask  for  deliverance  from  that  hour,  because 
He  had  sought  it  from  the  beginning.  His 
prayer  is  "  Father,  glorify  thy  name."  The 
Voice,  which  some  take  to  be  an  angel  speak- 
ing to  Him  (cf.  Luke  ix.  35;  xxii.  43)  is  for  the 
sake  of  the  bystanders.  The  Voice  at  His  bap- 
tism likewise  is  not  addressed  to  Him  (the  in- 
carnate Logos  does  not  need  a  revelation  of 
His  own  identity)  but  to  the  Baptist. 

So  again  and  again  Synoptic  scenes  are 
retouched  and  new  scenes  are  added  in  a  way 
to  present  a  consistent  picture  of  the  "taber- 
nacling" of  the  pre-existent  Son  of  God  in 
human  flesh.  As  we  review  the  whole,  and 
ask  ourselves,  What  is  the  occasion  of  this 
strange  new  presentation  of  the  evangelic 
message?  we  begin  to  realize  how  indis- 
pensable is  the  key  which  the  evangelist  has 
himself  hung  before  the  door.  Many  and 
complex  are  the  problems  which  confront  us 
as  we  move  through  this  heaped-up  tangle 


THE  SPIRITUAL  GOSPEL          229 

of  anecdote,  dialogue,  and  allegory.  There 
is  room  for  the  keenest  scrutiny  of  criticism 
to  determine,  if  possible,  when,  and  how,  and 
from  what  sources  these  meditations  were 
put  together.  But  nothing  that  critical  in- 
sight, analysis,  and  comparison  can  furnish 
avails  so  much  to  throw  real  light  upon  the 
work  as  what  the  evangelist  himself  has  done, 
by  setting  forth  in  a  prologue  (i.  1-18)  the 
fundamental  principles  of  his  conception. 
In  a  word  evangelic  tradition  as  it  had 
hitherto  found  currency  still  lacked  the  funda- 
mental thing  in  the  Christology  of  Paul — the 
Incarnation  doctrine.  Paul  conceived  the 
story  of  Jesus  as  a  supernal  drama,  beginning 
and  ending  in  heaven  at  God's  right  hand. 
Even  Matthew  and  Luke,  carrying  back  the 
adoption  to  Sonship  from  the  baptism  to  the 
birth  of  Jesus,  had  not  essentially  changed  the 
pre-Pauline  point  of  view.  Still  there  was  no 
pre-existence.  Jesus  was  not  yet  shown  as  the 
Wisdom  of  God,  through  whom  all  things 
were  created,  the  "heavenly  man,"  the  second 
Adam,  taking  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant, 
humbling  himself  and  becoming  obedient  unto 
death,  rich,  and  for  our  sakes  becoming  poor. 
He  was  still,  even  in  Mark,  just  the  prophet 
mighty  in  deed  and  word,  raised  up  by  God 
from  among  His  brethren,  and  for  His  obedi- 
ence exalted  to  the  messianic  throne  of  glory. 
How  could  this  satisfy  churches  trained  in 
the  doctrine  of  Paul?  We  should  almost 
rather  marvel  that  the  Synoptic  narratives 


230      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

ever  found  lodgment  at  all,  where  Paul  had 
preached  from  the  beginning  a  doctrine  of 
the  eternal  Christ. 

And  the  transformation  is  not  one  whit 
more  radical  than  we  ought  to  anticipate. 
The  Transfiguration  story  had  been  a  halting 
attempt  to  embody  Pauline  doctrine  in  Pet- 
rine  story.  But  apart  from  the  obvious  hold 
afforded  to  mere  Doketism,  how  inadequate 
to  Paul's  conception  of  the  "Man  from 
heaven"!  The  Fourth  evangelist  depicts 
the  person  of  Jesus  consistently  and  through- 
out, despite  his  meagre  and  refractory 
material,  along  the  lines  of  Pauline  Chris- 
tology.  There  is  no  concession  to  Doketism, 
for  in  spite  of  all,  and  designedly  (iv.  6;  xix. 
28,  34),  Jesus  is  still  no  phantasm,  but  true 
man  among  men.  There  is  no  hesitation  to 
override,  where  needful,  on  vital  points  the 
great  and  growing  authority  of  'apostolic* 
tradition.  Tacitly,  but  uncompromisingly, 
Petrine  tradition  is  set  aside.  The  "dis- 
ciple whom  Jesus  loved"  sees  the  matter 
otherwise.  In  particular,  apocalyptic  escha- 
tology  is  firmly  repressed  in  favour  of  a  doc- 
trine of  eternal  life  in  the  Spirit.  The  second 
Coming  is  not  to  be  a  manifestation  "to  the 
world."  It  will  be  an  inward  indwelling  of 
God  and  Christ  in  the  heart  of  the  believer 
(xiv.  22  /.).!  The  place  of  future  reward  is 

1  Some  few  passages  inconsistent  with  this  are  found 
in  the  body  of  the  Gospel.  Like  that  of  the  appendix  (xxi. 
22)  they  are  later  moclifications  of  a  doctrine  too  Hellenic 
for  the  majority. 


THE  SPIRITUAL  GOSPEL          231 

not  a  glorified  Palestine  and  transfigured, 
rebuilt  Jerusalem.  The  disciple,  like  Paul, 
will  "  depart  to  be  with  Christ."  The  Father's 
house  is  wider  than  the  Holy  Land.  It  has 
"many  mansions,"  and  the  servant  must  be 
content  to  know  that  his  Master  will  receive 
him  where  He  dwells  Himself  (xiv.  1-3;  xvii. 
24). 

To  realize  what  it  meant  to  produce  the 
'spiritual'  Gospel  that  comes  to  us  from 
Ephesus  shortly  after  the  close  of  the  first 
century  we  must  place  ourselves  side  by  side 
with  men  who  had  learned  the  gospel  of  Paul 
about  Jesus,  the  drama  of  the  eternal,  pre- 
existent,  "heavenly  Man,"  incarnate,  trium- 
phant through  the  cross  over  the  Prince  of 
this  world  and  powers  of  darkness.  We  must 
realize  how  they  found  it  needful  to  im- 
pregnate the  'apostolic'  material  of  Petrine 
and  Matthsean  tradition  with  this  deeper  sig- 
nificance, preserving  the  concrete,  historic 
fact,  and  the  real  manhood,  and  yet  supple- 
menting the  disproportionately  external  story 
with  a  wealth  of  transcendental  meaning. 
The  spirit  of  Paul  was,  indeed,  not  dead. 
Neither  Gnostic  heresy  could  dissipate  it,  nor 
reactionary  Christianized  legalism  absorb  it. 
It  had  been  reborn  in  splendid  authority  and 
power.  In  due  time  it  would  prove  itself  the 
very  mould  of '  catholic '  doctrine.  The  Fourth 
gospel,  as  its  Prologue  forewarns,  is  an  appli- 
cation to  the  story  of  Jesus  as  tradition  re- 
ported it  of  the  Pauline  incarnation  doctrine 


232      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

formulated  under  the  Stoic  Logos  theory.  It 
represents  a  study  in  the  psychology  of  reli- 
gion applied  to  the  person  of  Christ.  Poor 
as  Paul  himself  in  knowledge  of  the  outward 
Jesus,  unfamiliar  with  really  historical  words 
and  deeds,  its  doctrine  about  Jesus  became, 
nevertheless,  like  that  of  the  great  Apostle 
to  the  Gentiles,  the  truest  exposition  of  'the 
heart  of  Christ.' 


CHAPTER  X 

EPILOGUES  AND   CONCLUSIONS 

FEW  of  the  great  writings  cherished  and 
transmitted  by  the  early  church  have  escaped 
the  natural  tendency  to  attachments  at 
beginning  and  end.  In  the  later  period 
such  attachments  took  the  form  of  prefixed 
argumenta,  i.  e.  prefatory  descriptions  of 
author  and  contents,  and  affixed  subscriptions, 
devoted  to  a  similar  purpose.  These,  like 
the  titles,  were  clearly  distinguished  from 
the  text  itself,  and  in  modern  editions  are 
usually  not  printed,  though  examples  of 
'subscriptions'  may  be  seen  in  the  King 
James  version  after  the  Pauline  Epistles. 
Before  the  time  when  canonization  had  made 
such  a  process  seem  sacrilege  they  were 
attached  to  the  text  itself,  with  greater  or 
less  attempt  to  weld  the  parts  together.  We 
need  not  add  to  what  has  been  already  said 
as  to  certain  superscriptions  of  the  later 
epistolary  literature,  such  as  James  and  Jude, 
where  the  relation  to  the  text  impresses  us  as 
closer  than  is  sometimes  admitted;  nor  need 
we  delay  with  the  preamble  to  Revelation 
(Rev.  i.  1-3).  That  which  has  been  added  at 

233 


234     MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

the  close,  in  cases  where  real  evidence  exists 
of  such  later  supplementation,  is  of  special 
significance  to  our  study,  inasmuch  as  it 
tends  to  throw  light  where  light  is  most 
required.  For  that  is  an  obscure  period, 
early  in  the  second  century,  when  not  only 
the  churches  themselves  were  drawing  to- 
gether toward  catholic  unity  under  the  double 
pressure  of  inward  and  outward  peril,  but 
were  bringing  with  them  their  treasured 
writings,  sometimes  a  collection  of  Epistles, 
sometimes  a  Gospel,  or  a  book  of  Prophecy, 
sometimes,  as  in  the  groups  of  writings  at- 
tributed to  John  and  Peter,  a  full  canon  of 
Gospel,  Epistles,  and  Apocalypse,  followed 
but  little  later  by  'Acts'  as  well. 

The  most  ancient  list  of  books  authorized 
to  be  publicly  read  that  we  possess  is  that  of 
the  church  of  Rome  c.  185,  called  after  its 
discoverer  the  Canon  of  Muratori.  From  this 
fragment,  mutilated  at  beginning  and  end, 
we  learn  that  Paul's  letters  to  the  churches 
were  arranged  in  a  group  of  seven  1  of  which 
Romans  stood  last.  It  is  probably  due  to  its 
position  at  the  end  that  Romans  has  been 
supplemented  by  the  addition  of  Pauline 
fragments,  which  did  not  appear  in  some 
early  editions  of  the  text.  The  letter  proper 
ends  with  ch.  xv.  though  xvi.  21-23  probably 

1  The  personal  letters  formed  a  separate  group.  Two 
letters  to  the  same  church  (1st  Cor.,  2nd  Cor.)  were  counted 
as  one.  Mareion  (140)  counted  ten  in  all,  and  had  a  different 
order. 


EPILOGUES  AND  CONCLUSIONS        235 

followed,  perhaps  concluding  with  ver.  24, 
which  some  texts  insert  after  ver.  19.  Ver. 
25-27  is  another  fragment  omitted  in  some 
texts. 

We  have  seen  above  (p.  200)  how  Revela- 
tion has  received  conclusion  after  conclusion, 
so  that  the  relation  of  personalities  has  be- 
come almost  unintelligible.  We  have  very 
meagre  textual  material  for  Revelation,  and 
can  scarcely  judge  whether  any  of  the  process 
represented  in  Rev.  xxii.  6-21  belongs  to  the 
period  of  transmission,  after  the  publication 
of  the  book  in  its  present  form.  Until  the 
discovery  of  new  textual  evidence  the  phe- 
nomena in  Revelation  must  be  treated  by 
principles  of  the  higher  criticism,  as  pertaining 
to  its  history  before  publication.  At  all 
events  we  know  that  the  attribution  to 
"John"  (ver.  8.  /.)  was  current  as  early  as 
Justin's  Apology  (153). 

The  longer  and  shorter  supplements  to 
Mark  belong  again  to  the  field  of  textual 
criticism.  The  manuscripts  and  early  trans- 
lations carry  us  back  to  a  time  when  neither 
ending  was  known;  though  only  to  leave  us 
wondering  how  the  necessity  arose  for  com- 
posing them — a  question  of  the  higher  criti- 
cism. Mark  xvi.  9-20  shows  acquaintance 
with  Luke,  and  probably  with  John  xx.  It 
is  noteworthy,  however,  in  view  of  the 
author's  attempt  to  cover  the  resurrection 
appearances  of  these  two  gospels,  that  he 
betrays  no  sign  of  acquaintance  with  John 


236      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

xxi.  In  this  case  of  the  Roman  gospel,  how- 
ever, textual  evidence  enables  us  to  trace 
something  of  the  history  of  supplementation. 
The  so-called  'Shorter'  ending  provides  a 
close  for  the  incomplete  story,  resembling 
Matthew,  while  the  'Longer'  is  drawn  from 
Luke  and  John  i.-xx.  Subsequent  employ- 
ments show  that  the  'Longer'  ending  had 
been  attached  (perhaps  at  Rome)  not  later 
than  c.  150.  It  is  the  first  evidence  we  have 
of  combination  of  the  Fourth  gospel  with  the 
Synoptics;  for  even  Justin,  though  affected  by 
John,  does  not  use  it  as  he  uses  Matthew, 
Mark,  and  Luke.  Parity  among  the  four  is 
not  traceable  earlier  than  Tatian  (c.  175), 
the  father  of  gospel  'harmonies.'  The 
'Shorter'  ending,  if  not  the  Longer  as  well, 
would  seem  to  have  been  added  in  Egypt. 
The  supplements  to  Mark  have  this  at  least 
of  singular  interest,  that  they  show  the  prog- 
ress of  a  process  whose  beginnings  we  traced 
back  to  Palestine  itself  in  the  church  of  the 
*  apostles,  elders  and  witnesses  of  the  Lord,' 
where  "the  Elder"  in  the  tradition  reported 
by  Papias  is  already  offering  explanations  of 
the  disagreements  of  Matthew  and  Mark  with 
a  view  to  their  concurrent  circulation. 

After  the  addition  of  Mark  to  Matthew  it 
was  comparatively  easy  to  take  in  Luke-Acts 
as  a  third,  and  to  form  composites  out  of  the 
three  such  as  the  Gospel  of  Peter  (North  Syria 
c.  130)  and  the  Gospel  of  the  Nazarenes  (Coele- 
Syria  c.  140).  Justin  at  Rome  (c.  153)  is  still 


EPILOGUES  AND  CONCLUSIONS      237 

such  a  three-gospel  man,  though  affected  by 
the  Fourth;  whereas  his  predecessor  Hermas 
(125-140)  seems  to  rest  on  Mark  alone, 
though  perhaps  acquainted  with  Matthew. 
The  step  was  a  harder  one  which  aimed  to 
take  in  the  Fourth  gospel.  Tatian  at  Rome 
(c.  175)  and  Theophilus  at  Antioch  (181)  are 
the  agents  of  its  accomplishment;  and,  as 
we  have  seen,  it  was  not  effected  without  a 
determined  opposition,  led  at  Rome  by  the 
presbyter  Gaius,  and  answered  by  Irenseus 
(c.  186)  and  Hippolytus  (c.  215).  Such 
opposition  from  the  side  of  advocates  of 
Petrine  apostolicity  is  anticipated  in  the 
most  significant  and  important  of  all  the 
epilogues,  the  so-called  Appendix  or  Epilogue 
to  the  Fourth  gospel  (John  xxi.). 

Just  when,  or  where,  this  supplement  was 
added  is  one  of  the  most  difficult  problems 
of  the  higher  criticism.  On  the  side  of  exter- 
nal evidence  we  have  the  fact  that  it  shows 
no  effect  in  Mark  xvi.  9-21,  where  John  xx.  is 
employed,  and  that  there  is  a  great  change 
about  A.D.  170  in  the  treatment  of  this 
Gospel  and  its  related  Epistles,  those  who  use 
them  before  this  time  showing  no  disposi- 
tion to  treat  them  as  having  high  apostolic 
authority.  On  the  side  of  internal  evidence 
there  are  such  data  as  the  use  of -the  second- 
century  name  for  the  Sea  of  Galilee  ("Sea 
of  Tiberias,"  xxi.  1),  and  references  to  the 
martyrdom  of  Peter  at  Rome  (xxi.  18  /.)  and 
to  legends  of  John  as  the  *  witness '  who  should 


238      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

survive  until  the  Coining  (xxi.  23).  Whether 
these  data  suggest  an  origin  at  Ephesus, 
or  at  Rome,  and  at  just  what  date,  are  prob- 
lems for  technical  research.  That  which 
is  of  chief  interest  for  us  is  the  motive  and 
function  of  this  supplement  to  the  Ephesian 
Gospel,  and  the  light  it  throws  upon  condi- 
tions in  the  church  at  large. 

It  is  quite  apparent  that  John  xxi.  forms  a 
subsequent  attachment  after  the  formal  con- 
clusion of  the  Gospel  proper  in  xx.  30  /.  For, 
apart  from  differences  in  style  and  doctrinal 
standpoint,  it  makes  a  complete  new  depar- 
ture along  the  lines  of  Mark's  story  of  Gali- 
lean resurrection  manifestations;  whereas  the 
Gospel  follows  the  Lukan  type,  and  brings 
everything  to  a  close  without  removal  from 
Jerusalem.  The  message  to  the  disciples 
by  the  women  at  the  sepulchre  is  here  given 
by  Jesus  in  person  as  in  Matt,  xxviii.  10,  and 
is  actually  delivered  as  in  Luke  xxiv.  10 /.  It 
is  followed  by  the  promised  manifestation  to 
the  disciples  with  the  overcoming  of  their 
incredulity,  and  by  the  great  Commission, 
accompanied  by  the  Gift  of  the  Spirit.  The 
story  has  thus  been  brought  to  a  formal  con- 
clusion, the  invariable  and  necessary  conclu- 
sion of  all  evangelic  narratives.  The  author's 
recapitulation  of  the  nature  and  contents  of 
his  book  and  assurance  in  direct  address  to 
the  reader  of  his  purpose  in  writing  ("  that 
ye  may  believe")  follows  appropriately  as  a 
winding  up  of  the  whole.  It  is  not  conceiv- 


EPILOGUES  AND  CONCLUSIONS      £39 

able  that  the  same  writer  should  resume  im- 
mediately after  this,  at  an  earlier  point  in  the 
narrative,  where  the  disciples  are  still  scat- 
tered in  Galilee,  unconscious  of  their  vocation 
and  commission.  For  in  spite  of  the  endeav- 
our of  the  supplementer  in  ver.  14  to  make  this 
out  "the  third1  time  that  Jesus  was  mani- 
fested" they  have  manifestly  returned  to 
their  original  means  of  livelihood  unawakened 
to  the  resurrection  faith.  Moreover  the  story 
culminates  with  a  restoration  of  Peter  to 
favour,  with  unmistakable  reference  to  his 
humiliating  failure  to  live  up  to  the  promise 
(xiii.  36-38),  "Lord,  why  cannot  I  follow  thee 
even  now?  I  will  lay  down  my  life  for  thee" 
(cf.  xxi.  15-19).  If  it  had  been  the  evangel- 
ist's intention  to  tell  this  he  would  have  told 
it  before  the  Commission  in  xx.  19-23.  In 
short,  we  have  here  two  widely  variant  forms 
of  the  tradition  of  the  rallying  of  the  disciples 
from  their  unbelief  by  the  risen  Christ  and 
commissioning  of  them  to  their  task.  The 
two  commissions,  one  a  general  commission 
of  all  "the  twelve,"  like  Matt,  xviii.  18,  the 
other  a  special  commission  of  Peter  like  Matt, 
xvi.  19,  are  attached  one  after  the  other, 
with  the  curious  infelicity  that  the  restoration 
of  Peter  from  his  defection,  together  with  his 
installation  as  chief  under-shepherd  of  the 
flock,  comes  after  the  commission  in  which 

1  A  miscount  for  "fourth,"  unless  we  disregard  xx.  11- 
18,  or  else  (with  Wellhausen)  consider  xx.  24-29  an  insertion 
later  than  the  Epilogue. 


240      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

he  has  already  appeared  with  the  rest, 
restored  to  full  faith  and  favour,  and  gifted 
with  the  inspiration  and  authority  of  the 
Spirit. 

It  is  true  that  the  function  of  "tending  the 
flock  of  God"  (cf.  1st  Pet.  v.  2)  committed  to 
Peter  in  xxi.  15-19  is  a  more  special  one  than 
the  apostolate  conferred  on  all  in  xx.  21-23; 
but  the  Epilogue  has  previously  (xxi.  1-14) 
given  to  Peter  a  special  and  commanding 
part  in  the  apostolate  (extension  of  the 
gospel  to  the  world).  No  one  will  question 
that  in  such  a  writer  as  the  Fourth  evangelist 
(and  if  anything  still  more  the  writer  of  the 
Epilogue)  narratives  of  miracle  are  intended 
to  have  a  symbolical  sense.  Nor  will  it  be 
denied  that  the  miraculous  draft  of  fishes, 
which  in  Luke  v.  1-11  attends  the  original 
vocation  of  "Simon," 1  is  here  applied  to  the 
work  the  twelve  are  to  accomplish  in  the  now 
opening  future  as  "fishers  of  men."  The 
particularization  of  the  number  of  the  fishes, 
and  the  statement  that  the  peril  of  the  rend- 
ing of  the  net  (cf.  Luke  v.  6)  was  happily 
avoided,  are,  of  course,  also  intended  to  con- 
vey a  symbolical  sense,  which  Jerome  makes 
still  easier  to  grasp  by  informing  us  that  153 
was  taken  by  naturalists  of  the  time  to  be  the 
full  number  of  all  species  of  fish.  John  xxi. 
1-14  is  therefore  a  primitive  story  of  the 

1  The  addition  in  ver.'lOa  and  the  plural  "they"  in  ver. 
11,  are  mere  editorial  adaptations  of  the  story  to  Mark  i. 
16-20. 


EPILOGUES  AND  CONCLUSIONS      241 

appearance  of  Jesus  after  his  resurrection  "to 
Peter  and  them  that  were  with  him,"  in 
Galilee  (not  in  Jerusalem  as  in  John  i.-xx. 
and  Luke),  having  a  relation  to  Luke  v.  1-11, 
and  probably  also  to  Matt.  xiv.  28-33  (cf. 
John  xxi.  7).  It  is  also  nearly  akin  to  the 
fragment  at  the  end  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter. 
It  symbolizes  the  work  of  the  apostolic 
mission  under  the  figure  of  the  fishing  of  men 
(cf.  Mark  i.  17;  Matt.  xiii.  47-50),  and  gives 
to  Peter  the  leading  part.  In  fact  Peter  not 
only  comes  to  the  Lord  in  advance  of  all  the 
rest,  and  alone  maintains  with  him  something 
like  the  intimate  relations  of  the  past,  but 
performs  after  his  private  interview  with 
Jesus  the  gigantic  feat  of  bringing  unaided 
to  land  the  entire  miraculous  catch.  The 
great  and  various  multitude,  which  all  work- 
ing in  common  had  enclosed  in  the  net,  but 
had  not  been  able  to  lift  into  the  boat,  Peter, 
at  Jesus'  word,  brought  safely  home.  The 
writer  who  so  employs  the  already  con- 
ventionalized symbols  of  ecclesiastical  imag- 
ery, surely  had  no  mean  idea  of  the  apostle- 
ship  of  Peter.  In  at  least  as  high  degree  as 
the  author  of  Acts  he  conceives  of  Peter  as 
commissioned  in  a  special  sense  to  be  the 
great  director  and  leader  of  all  missionary 
activity,  to  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews  (Acts  xv. 
7),  and  to  have  been  the  saviour  of  the  unity 
of  the  church  in  the  hour  of  its  threatened 
disruption.  When  in  addition  he  is  invested 
by  Jesus  with  the  insignia  and  office  of  chief 


242      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

under-shepherd  of  the  flock  of  God,  the  stain 
of  his  threefold  denial  wiped  out  by  a  three- 
fold opportunity  to  prove  his  special  love 
by  special  service,  and  the  ignominy  of  his 
previous  failure  to  "follow"  (xiii.  36-38) 
atoned  for  by  the  promise  that  in  old  age 
he  shall  have  opportunity  to  follow  Jesus  in 
martyrdom  (xxi.  18/.),  there  remains  nothing 
that  the  most  exacting  friend  of  *  catholic* 
apostolicity  could  demand  in  the  way  of 
tribute  to  its  great  representative. 

And  yet  the  main  object  of  the  Epilogue 
has  not  yet  been  touched.  It  was  not 
written,  we  may  be  sure,  merely  to  glorify 
Peter;  though  it  is,  of  course,  insupposable 
that  the  Gospel  in  its  primitive  form  simply 
left  Peter  in  the  attitude  of  a  renegade  after 
xviii.  27,  to  reappear  quite  as  if  nothing  had 
happened  in  xx.  1  ff.1  It  pays  its  tribute 
to  Peter  as  chief  witness  to  the  resurrection, 
chief  apostle,  chief  saviour  of  the  unity  of 
the  church,  chief  under-shepherd  of  the 
flock  of  God,  in  the  interest  of  that  catholic 
apostolic  unity  which  all  churchmen  were  so 
earnestly  labouring  to  achieve  in  the  writer's 
time,  and  for  which  the  name  of  Peter  was 
increasingly  significant.  But  the  chief  object 
of  the  Epilogue  is  something  else.  It  was 
written  primarily  to  commend  and  find  room 

1  We  must  conclude  that  both  these  data  from  Synoptic 
tradition,  the  denial  (xiii.  36-38;  xviii.  15-18,  25-27)  and 
the  restoration  (ch.  xxi.)  are  supplements  to  the  original  form 
of  the  Gospel. 


EPILOGUES  AND  CONCLUSIONS      243 

for  another  authority,  the  authority  of  the 
Gospel  to  which  it  is  appended,  and  which 
repeatedly  sets  over  against  Peter  a  myste- 
rious unnamed  figure,  who  always  sees  when 
Peter  is  blind,  believes  when  Peter  is  unbe- 
lieving, is  faithful  when  Peter  and  all  the  rest 
have  fled  in  cowardly  desertion.  The  object 
of  the  Epilogue  is  to  find  room  alongside  the 
growing  and  salutary  authority  of  Peter  for 
the  authority  and  message  of  "the  disciple 
whom  Jesus  loved."  Its  purpose  appears 
in  its  conclusion,  "This  (the  disciple  whom 
Jesus  loved)  is  the  disciple  which  beareth 
witness  of  these  things,  and  wrote  these 
things,  and  we  (the  church  which  cherishes 
and  gives  forth  this  '  spiritual '  Gospel)  know 
that  His  witness  is  true." 

The  writer  does  not  explicitly  say  that  he 
means  the  Apostle  John  (reputed  in  Ephesus 
the  author  of  Revelation);  for  such  direct 
identification  might  well  endanger  his  own 
object.  But  he  makes  it  clear  in  two  ways 
that  John  is  really  intended,  as,  indeed, 
subsequent  writers  immediately  infer.1  (1) 
"The  sons  of  Zebedee"  are  introduced  for 
the  first  time  in  the  entire  work  in  xxi.  2, 
among  the  group  who  are  present  with  Peter. 
An  easy  process  of  elimination,2  then,  leaves 

1  The  Muratorianum  bases  its  legendary  account  of  the 
writing  of  the  Fourth  gospel  by  "John"  with  the  endorse- 
ment of  "his  fellow-disciples  and  bishops"  on  John  xxi.  24. 

2  The  early  death  of  James  the  son  of  Zebedee  (Acts  xii. 
1)  excludes  him  from  consideration. 


244      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

open  to  identification  as  "the  disciple  whom 
Jesus  loved"  (ver.  7)  only  John,  or  else 
one  of  the  two  unnamed  "other  disciples," 
who  could  hardly  be  reckoned  among  Jesus' 
closest  intimates. 

(2)  The  scene  of  the  prediction  of  Peter's 
martyrdom  (xxi.  18  /.)  is  followed  immedi- 
ately (ver.  20-23)  by  a  reference  to  traditions 
which  we  know  to  have  been  current  before 
the  close  of  the  first  century  regarding  the 
martyrdom  of  the  two  sons  of  Zebedee,  in 
particular  regarding  John.  Peter  in  xxi.  21 
raises  the  question  as  to  the  fate  of  "the 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved"  (literally,  "and  as 
to  this  man,  what?").  The  pregnant  com- 
mand of  Jesus  to  Peter,  "Follow  me,"  is 
clearly  intended  to  have  reference  to  martyr- 
dom (cf.  xiii.  36/.),  and  it  is  obeyed  by  "the 
disciple  whom  Jesus  loved"  as  well  as  Peter. 
Peter's  inquiry  and  the  Lord's  reply  had 
given  rise  "among  the  brethren"  to  the  belief 
that  this  disciple  would  "tarry"  till  the 
Coming.  Now  it  is  of  John,  son  of  Zebedee, 
and  only  of  him,  that  we  have  a  curious 
vacillation  of  ancient  tradition  between  belief 
in  his  martyrdom  in  the  same  sense  as  his 
brother  James  (Mark  x.  39),  and  a  belief 
(probably  based  on  Mark  ix  .1)  that  he  would 
tarry  as  an  abiding  witness  until  the  Coming 
('white  martyrdom').  The  writer  of  the 
Epilogue  has  manifestly  these  traditions 
about  the  fate  of  John  in  mind.  He  would 
have  his  readers  understand  that  the  enig- 


EPILOGUES  AND  CONCLUSIONS      245 

matic  prophecy  of  Jesus  neither  promised  the 
permanent  survival  of  John,  nor  his  violent 
death,  but  was  at  least  capable  of  an  inter- 
pretation which  set  John  alongside  of  Peter, 
not  as  a  rival  of  his  leadership,  or  directive 
control,  but  simply  as  a  witness  ('martyr') 
to  the  truth.  Peter  is  willingly  granted  the 
office  of  *  ruling  elder'  in  the  church,  if  only 
"the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved"  may  have 
the  function  of  the  prophet  and  teacher  'in 
the  Spirit,'  the  man  of  faith  and  insight, 
whose  function  it  is  to  interpret  'the  mind 
of  Christ.' 

Few  things  could  be  more  significant  of 
the  conditions  of  Christian  life  and  thought 
in  the  earlier  years  of  the  second  century 
than  this  Epilogue,  appended  to  the  'spiritual' 
Gospel  to  commend  it  to  general  acceptance 
in  the  church.  It  is  not  vitally  important 
whether  the  cautiously  suggested  identifica- 
tion of  the  Beloved  Disciple  with  John,  the 
son  of  Zebedee,  be  correct  or  not.  It  is 
important  to  a  historical  appreciation  of  the 
great  literary  contribution  of  the  churches 
of  Paul  to  the  'catholic'  Christianity  of  the 
second  century,  that  we  realize  what  Petrine 
catholicity  had  then  come  to  mean,  and  how 
the  Pauline  spiritual  gospel  came  half-way 
to  meet  it.  On  this  point  a  study  of  the 
epilogues  is  rewarding,  but  especially  of  the 
great  Epilogue  to  the  Gospel  of  John. 

We  have  reached  the  period  for  our  own 


246      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

concluding  words.  The  process  of  combina- 
tion and  canonization  of  the  New  Testament 
writings,  which  followed  upon  the  consolida- 
tion of  the  churches  in  the  second  century 
falls  outside  our  province.  We  have  sought 
only  to  give  some  insight  into  the  origins, 
considering  the  Making  of  the  New  Testament 
to  apply  rather  to  the  creations  of  the  forma- 
tive period,  when  conscious  inspiration  was 
still  in  its  full  glow,  than  to  the  period  of 
collection  into  an  official  canon.  As  we  look 
back  over  the  two  leading  types  of  Christian 
thought,  Pauline  and  *  Apostolic,'  the  Greek- 
Christian  gospel  about  Jesus,  and  the  Jewish- 
Christian  gospel  of  Jesus,  the  gospel  of  the 
Spirit  and  the  gospel  of  authority,  we  cannot 
fail  to  realize  how  deep  and  broad  and  ancient 
are  the  two  great  currents  of  religious  thought 
and  life  that  here  are  mingling,  contending, 
coming  to  new  expression  and  clearer  defini- 
tion. Each  has  its  various  subdivisions  and 
modifications,  Pauline  Christianity  in  the 
Greek  world  has  its  problems  of  resistance 
to  Hellenistic  perversion  on  the  one  side,  to 
reaction  toward  Jewish  external  authority  on 
the  other.  Apostolic  Christianity,  whether 
in  its  more  conservative  form  at  Jerusalem, 
or  in  broader  assimilation  to  Pauline  doctrine 
at  Antioch  and  Rome,  has  also  its  divergent 
streams,  its  more  primitive  and  its  more 
developed  stages.  The  literature,  as  we 
slowly  come  to  appreciate  it  against  the 
background  of  the  times,  more  and  more 


EPILOGUES  AND  CONCLUSIONS      247 

reveals  itself  as  an  index  to  the  life.  Not  to 
the  mere  idiosyncrasies  of  individuals,  but 
to  the  great  Gulf-stream  of  the  human  in- 
stinct for  social  Righteousness  and  for  indi- 
vidual Redemption,  as  it  sweeps  onward  in  its 
mighty  tide. 

The  literature  of  the  New  Testament  must 
be  understood  historically  if  understood  at 
all.  It  must  be  understood  as  the  product, 
we  might  almost  say  the  precipitate,  of  the 
greatest  period  in  the  history  of  religion. 
It  represents  the  meeting  and  mutual  adjust- 
ment of  two  fundamental  and  complemen- 
tary conceptions  of  religion.  The  antithesis 
is  not  merely  that  between  the  particularism 
of  the  Jew  and  the  universalism  of  the  Gentile. 
It  is  an  antithesis  of  the  social  ideal  of  Law 
and  Prophets  against  the  individual  ideal  of 
personal  redemption  through  union  with  the 
divine  Spirit,  which  lay  at  the  heart  of  all 
vital  Hellenistic  religious  thought  in  this 
period  of  the  Empire.  Christianity  as  we 
know  it,  the  religion  of  humanity  as  it  has 
come  to  be,  the  ultimate  world-religion  as 
we  believe  it  destined  to  become,  is  a  resultant 
of  these  two  factors,  Semitic  and  Aryan,  the 
social  and  the  individual  ideal.  Its  canonized 
literature  represents  the  combination.  On 
the  one  side  the  social  ideal  is  predominant. 
It  perpetuates  the  gospel  of  Jesus  in  the  form 
of  Matthsean  and  Petrine  tradition,  supple- 
mented by  apocalypse,  which  tradition  at- 
taches con jectur ally  to  the  name  of  John. 


248      MAKING  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

The  goal  it  seeks  is  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
righteousness  and  peace  on  earth  as  in  heaven. 
On  the  other  side  the  individual  ideal  pre- 
dominates. It  perpetuates  the  gospel  about 
Jesus  in  the  form  of  the  Pauline  and  Johan- 
nine  doctrine  of  his  person,  regarded  as  the 
norm  and  type  of  spiritual  life.  The  goal  it 
seeks  is  personal  immortality  by  moral  fellow- 
ship with  God.  Its  faith  is  Sonship,  by  parti- 
cipation in  the  divine  nature,  without  limi- 
tation in  time,  without  loss  of  individual 
identity.  Both  types  of  gospel  are  justified 
in  claiming  to  emanate  from  Jesus  of  Nazar- 
eth; but  neither  without  the  other  can  claim 
to  fully  represent  the  significance  of  his 
spirit  and  life. 

The  unity  of  the  New  Testament  is  a  unity 
in  diversity.  Just  because  it  presents  so 
widely  divergent  conceptions  of  what  the 
gospel  is,  it  gives  promise  of  perennial 
fecundity.  Studied  not  after  the  manner  of 
the  scribes,  who  think  that  in  their  book  of 
precept  and  prophecy  they  have  a  passport 
to  rewards  in  a  magical  world  to  come,  but 
studied  as  a  "manifestation  of  the  life,  even 
the  eternal  life"  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  man, 
it  will  continue  to  reproduce  the  spirit  and 
mind  of  Christ.  Studied  as  a  reflection  at 
various  times  and  in  divers  manners  of  that 
redemptive  Wisdom  of  God,  which  "in 
every  generation  entering  into  holy  souls 
makes  men  to  be  prophets  and  friends  of 
God"  (Sap.  vii.  27),  and  which  the  Greeks, 


EPILOGUES  AND  CONCLUSIONS      249 

considering  it,  unfortunately,  in  its  intellec- 
tual rather  than  its  moral  aspect,  call  the 
Logos  of  God,  it  will  prove,  as  in  so  many 
generations  past  it  has  proved,  an  "incor- 
ruptible seed,"  a  "word  of  good  tidings 
preached  unto"  the  world,  a  "word  of  the. 
Lord  that  abideth  for  ever." 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


1.  General  Introductions  to  N.T.  Literature. 

MOFFATT,  JAS.  "Internal.  Theol.  Library"  Series.  Scrib- 
ner's,  1911.  Standard,  comprehensive,  progressive.  Best 
compendium  of  the  subject  in  English.  A  book  for  experts. 
671  pp.,  8vo. 

JtfLicHER,  A.  Engl.  transl.,  by  D.  A.  Ward,  from  4th  Ger- 
man ed.  London,  Smith,  Elder  &  Co.,  1903.  The  most 
serviceable  of  modern  German  Introductions,  based  on  the 
standard  work  of  the  "liberal"  school,  by  H.  J.  Holtzmann. 
650  pp.,  large  8vo. 

ZAHN,  THEO.  Engl.  transl.  from  3rd  German  ed.,  by  M.  W. 
Jacobus.  Scribner's,  1909.  Standard  "conservative"  work. 
Immense  scholarship  in  the  harness  of  apologetics.  Total, 
1750  pp.,  in  3  vols.,  large  8vo. 

BACON,  B.  W.  "New  Test.  Handbook"  Series.  Macmillan, 
1900.  Similar  to  Moffatt's  in  standpoint,  but  without  the 
survey  of  the  literature.  For  readers  less  technically  advanced. 
800  pp.,  small  8vo. 

PEAKE,  A.  S.  N.  Y.,  Scribner's,  1910.  250  pp.,  12mo.  An 
excellent  primer  of  the  subject,  generally  conservative. 

2.  Critical  Treatments  of  Pauline  Literature. 

SHAW,  R.  D.  The  Pauline  Epistles,  Introductory  and  Expo- 
sitory Studies,  2nd  ed.  T.  &  T.  Clarke,  1904.  518  pp.,  large 
8vo.  Sober  and  cautious.  For  general  readers. 

RAMSAY,  W.  M.  Pauline  and  other  Studies  in  Early  Chris- 
tian History.  Hodder  &  Stoughton,  1906.  425  pp.,  large  8vo. 
The  Cities  of  St.  Paul  (1907,  468  pp.)  is  by  the  same  author, 
an  eminent  geographer  and  archaeologist  ardently  enlisted 
against  German  criticism.  Interesting  but  diffuse. 
251 


252  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

PFLEIDERER,  O.  Paulinism.  Engl.  transl.  by  E.  Peters. 
2nd  ed.  1891.  Williams  &  Norgate.  2  vols.,  8vo.  Total, 
580  pp.,  8vo.  Still  a  standard  exposition  of  Paul's  system  of 
thought.  A  book  for  experts. 

BAUR,  F.  C.  Paul  the  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  his  Life  and 
Work,  Epistles  and  Doctrine.  Engl.  transl.  of  Zeller's  (2nd), 
German  ed.,  by  A.  Menzies.  Williams  &  Norgate,  1876.  Two 
vols.  8vo  (375  +  350  pp.).  An  epoch-making  book,  the 
starting-point  of  modern  criticism. 

SCHWEITZER,  A.  This  able,  though  one-sided,  critic  has 
issued  already  (1912)  the  conclusion  to  his  study  of  modern 
Lives  of  Christ  (see  below,  The  Quest  of  the  Historical  Jesus) 
under  the  title  Geschichte  der  Paulinischen  Forschung.  It  may 
be  expected  that  this  comprehensive  survey  and  searching 
criticism  of  the  literature  of  Pauline  study  will  soon  be  made 
accessible  to  the  English  reader. 

WREDE,  W.  Paul.  Engl.  transl.  by  E.  Lummis.  P.  Green, 
London,  1907.  190  pp.,  12mo.  A  brief,  brilliant,  popular 
sketch,  radical,  suggestive.  Needs  the  balance  of  more  cau- 
tious criticism. 

WEISS,  J.  Paul  and  Jesus.  Engl.  transl.  by  H.  J.  Chaytor. 
London  and  New  York,  Harper  &  Bros.,  1909.  130  pp.,  12mo. 
An  effective  answer  to  Wrede's  view  of  Paul  as  the  real  creator 
of  Christianity,  by  a  progressive  and  able  critic. 

Lives  of  Paul  by  Cone,  Clemen  (German)  and  others  are 
abundant  in  recent  years.  See  the  Encyclopaedias  and  Dic- 
tionaries of  the  Bible,  s.v.  "  Paul." 

3.  Critical  Treatments  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  and 
Acts. 

STANTON,  V.  H.  The  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents, 
Parts  I  and  II.  Cambridge  University  Press,  1903-1909. 
297  +  400  pp.,  8vo.  A  standard  survey  of  Gospel  criticism 
from  a  conservative  standpoint,  the  work  of  a  scholar  for 
scholars. 

CONE,  O.  Gospel  Criticism  and  Historical  Christianity. 
Putnam's,  N.  Y.,  1891.  375  pp.,  small  8vo.  Liberal,  semi- 
popular. 

BURKITT,  F.  C.  The  Earliest  Sources  for  the  Life  of  Jesus. 
Houghton  &  Mifflin,  Boston  and  New  York,  1910.  130  pp., 
12mo.  Simple  and  popular.  Burkitt  is  a  leading  progressive 
scholar. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  253 

4.  The  Johannine  Writings. 

DRUMMOND,  JAS.  Character  and  Authorship  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel  Scribner's,  N.  Y.,  1904.  544  pp.,  8vo.  The  ablest 
recent  defence  of  the  traditional  authorship.  Scholarly  dis- 
cussion of  the  literary  history. 

BACON,  B.  W.  The  Fourth  Gospel  in  Research  and  Debate- 
Moffat,  Yard  &  Co.,  N.  Y.,  1910.  556  pp.,  8vo.  A  similar 
discussion  of  the  evidences  reaching  the  reverse  conclusion. 

SCOTT,  E.  F.  The  Fourth  Gospel,  its  Purpose  and  Theology. 
T.  &  T.  Clarke,  Edinburgh,  1906.  386  pp.,  8vo.  Admirable 
in  temper,  lucid  in  style,  semi-popular. 

SCHMIEDEL,  P.  W.  The  Johannine  Writings.  Engl.  transl., 
by  M.  A.  Canney.  London,  A.  &  C.  Black,  1903.  295  pp., 
12mo.  Brief,  popular,  radical,  by  one  of  the  ablest  of  N.  T. 
critics. 

General. 

REUSS,  E.  History  of  the  N.  T.  Engl.  transl.  from  5th 
German  ed.,  by  E.  L.  Houghton.  Boston,  Houghton,  Mifflin 
&  Co.,  1884.  649  pp.,  2  vols.,  large  8vo.  A  standard  treasury 
of  scholarly  information. 

WERNLE,  P.  The  Beginnings  of  Christianity.  Engl.  transl., 
by  G.  A.  Bienemann.  London,  Williams  &  Norgate,  1904. 
888  +  404  pp.,  8vo.,  2  vols.  Able,  scholarly,  advanced. 

PFLEIDERER,  O.  Christian  Origiyf.  Engl.  transl.,  by 
Huebsch.  New  York,  B.  W.  Huebsfch,  1906.  295  pp.,  12mo. 
Popular  lectures  showing  something  of  the  views  of  the  modern 
school  of  critics  known  as  religions-geschichtlich.  Pfleiderer's 
critical  opinions  are  fully  expressed  in  his  Primitive  Christi- 
anity (Engl.  transl.,  by  W.  Montgomery,  hi  four  vols.,  8vo. 
Putnams,  1909). 

MUZZEY,  D.  S.  The  Rise  of  the  N.  T.  New  York,  Mac- 
millan,  1900.  156  pp.,  12mo.  An  excellent  primer  for  beginners. 

WREDE,  W.  The  Origin  of  the  N.  T.  Engl.  transl.  by  J.  S. 
Hill.  Harper  &  Bros.,  London  &  New  York,  1909.  151  pp., 
12mo.  An  admirable  primer  by  a  brilliant  leader  of  advanced 
criticism. 

VON  SODEN.  The  History  of  Early  Christian  Literature. 
Writings  of  the  N.  T.  Engl.  transl.,  by  J.  R.  Wilkinson.  Wil- 
liams &  Norgate,  1906.  476  pp.,  12mo.  A  book  for  beginners 
by  a  great  N.  T.  scholar  of  liberal  views.  A  closely  connected 
field  is  covered  by  various  Histories  of  the  Apostolic  Age.  of 


si., 

94.        / 

D.V 


254  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

which  the  most  recent  and  important  are  those  of  Weizsacker 
(Engl.  transl.,  1895)  and  McGiffert  (1897).  Less  technical 
and  more  orthodox  are  those  of  Vernon-Bartlett  (1899)  and 
J.  H.  Ropes  (1906).  Critical  Lives  of  Christ  present  the  results 
of  critical  study  of  the  Gospels.  A  survey  of  this  field  of  re- 
search, keenly  analytical  and  severely  critical,  is  given  by  A. 
Schweitzer  in  The  Quest  of  the  Historical  Jesus  (Engl.  transl. 
by  W.  Montgomery.  A.  &  C.  Black,  1910.  416  pp.,  8vo). 
Schweitzer  writes  with  great  scholarship  and  power,  but 
decided  polemic  interest  as  a  "consistent  eschatologist." 


INDEX 


ABOMINATION,  161,  218 
Acts,  57  ff.,  64  ff.,  174  ff. 
Agabus,  185,  202 
Allegory  (in  John),  224 
Angelology  and  demonology,  95 
Antichrist,  217  f. 
Anti-legalism  (of  Mark),  166 
Antinomian  heresy,  149,  214 
Antioch,  71,  175  ff.,  183  f. 
Apocalypses,  29,  51,  87,  188,  197 
Apostolic  Christianity,  42,   126,  129, 

246 

Commission,  238  f. 

Council,  60,  63,  67 

Appendix    to    John,    107,    147,    211, 

236  ff. 

Asia,  Churches  of,  197  ff. 
Athanasius,  29  f. 

Babylon  (  =  Rome),  115,  196 

Baptist  (in  John),  225 

Bar  Cocheba,  204 

Baruch,  Apocalypse  of,  188 

Baur,  F.  C.,  37  ff. 

Beloved  disciple,  the,  227,  243  ff. 

C«esarea,  85 

Calvin,  37 

Canonization  of  the  Law,  12 

Cerinthus,  219 

Chiliasts,  187 

Christological  Epistles,  97 

Christ-party,  45 

Clement  of  Rome,  19  f.,  79,  115,  119 

of  Alexandria,  25 

Clementine     Homilies     and    Recogni- 
tions, 148 
Colossians,  98 
Corinthian  Epistles,  76  ff. 

Decrees  of  Jerusalem,  60 
Diary  of  Acts,  183 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  191 
Disputed  books,  30 
Doketism,  21,  110,  126,  153,  163,  184, 
186,  214,  217,  219 

Elder  (of  2nd  and  3rd  John),  215 
Elements,  76,  99 


Epbesians,  98 

Ephesus,  76,  97,  111  f.,  191,  201,  211 

Epiphanius,  131 

Epistles  (Major),  43 

of  the  Captivity,  42,  85,  100 

Eschatological  discourse,  161 
Esdras  (Apocalypse  of),  188 
External  evidence,  38 

False  brethren,  41 
Feasts  (in  John),  226 
Fornication,  60,  77 

Gaius  (3rd  John),  215  f. 

of  Rome,  31,  287 

Galatians,  56,  74 

Gentile  liberty,  61  ff. 

Gnosticism,  40,  108,  207  f. 

Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrewi,  135, 

145 
of  the  Naxarenes,  132,  145  ff.,  236 

Harnack,  98 
Hebrews,  107,  118  ff. 

Apostolic  authority  in,  18 

Canonical  standing  of,  31 

Hegesippus,  105  f.,  Ill 
Hellenistic  religion,  247 
Hermas,  21,  28,  119  f.,  237 

Ignatius,  20  f.,  23,  111,  124,  126,  208 
Incarnation   Doctrine,   49,    154,   229, 

231 
Infancy  of  Jesus    (in   Matthew  and 

Luke),  152 
Internal  evidence,  38 
Irenseus,  31,  133,  219 

James,  104  ff.,  107,  112  f.,  130 
Jerusalem  Conference,  67,  71 

succession,  105  f.,  119 

John,  the  Apostle,  a  martyr,  104,  194, 

243 

Gospel  of,  25,  31,  43,  54,  206  ff. 

Revelation  of,  30,  43,  63,  107,  181, 

187,  189  ff.,  235 

Epistles  of,  43,  111,  126,  211  ff. 

Acts  of,  219  f. 


255 


256 


INDEX 


John  the  Elder,  26,  131,  133,  236 

Josephus  (used  by  Luke),  174 

Judaism  v.  Hellenism,  52  f. 

Judaizers,  68 

Jude,  19,  30,  107,  130 

Justin  Martyr,  187,  190,  235  f. 

Kindred  of  the  Lord,  164  f. 

Laodiceans,  98 

Law  P.  grace,  8,  14,  66,  74,  81,  123 

Loffia,  136,  141 

Logos-doctrine,  55,  221,  232 

Lordship  (of  Christ),  96 

Luke,  27,  139,  173  f. 

his  omissions  from  Mark,  178  f. 

his  purpose  in  writing,  180  f. 

Luther,  37 

Magic,  93  ff. 
Marcion,  22  ff .,  40 
Mark,  129,  134,  159  ff. 

Duplication  in,  172 

Endings  of,  168  ff.,  235  f. 

Matthew,  131  ff.,  187 
Melito  of  Sardis,  19,  190 
Michaelis,  85 
Missionary  Journey,  First,  58  f. 

Journey,  Second,  72 

Moffatt,  Jas.,  151 

Montanus,  28  f . 

Muratorian  Fragment,  30,  234 

Nepos,  the  ChiMast,  191 
Offering  for  the  poor,  69 

Palestine,  Origin  of  Revelations,  195  ff. 
Papias,  26,  105  f.,  130  f.,  186  f.,  190, 

208 

Parables  (in  Matthew),  149  f. 
Passover,  101,  173 
Pastoral  Epistles,  19,  31,  83,  108,  111, 

123 

Patmos,  191,  200  f. 
Paul,  Original  Apostle  of  Asia,  205 

his  religious  experience,  16 

martydom,  105 

Pauline  t>.  Petrine  gospel,  49 
Paulinism  of  Mark,  162 
Persecution,  13,  122 
Peter  (the  Apostle),  24,  26,  106,  133, 

146 

Apocalypse  of,  29  f. 

Commission  of,  240  f . 

Epistles  of,  41,  108  f.,  112  ff. 

Gospel  of,  171,  221,  236 

Preaching  of,  139 

Pharisaic  Judaism,  121 


Philemon,  88 

Philip,  Daughters  of,  185  f. 

Philippians,  89  ff. 

Phrygian  heresy,  28 

Pirke  Aboth,  141 

Polycarp,  26,  110,  130,  186,  218 

Porphyry,  106 

Post-Reformation  dogma,  33  f. 

Precepts  (of  Jesus),  137 

Prologue  (of  John),  231 

Prophecy,  188  f.,  209 

Q-material,  141  ff. 

Reconciliation  with  God,  103 

Redeemer-gods,  50 

Redemption  doctrines,  86,  93 

Reformation,  37 

Repentance  (the  Great),  156  f. 

Resurrection-doctrine,  73,  78,  125, 155, 

158,  204,  210 
Revelation     (See    John,     Revelation 

of) 

Romans,  75,  80  ff. 
Rome,  120,  129 

Satan,  Dominion  of,  157 
Scripture,  Use  in  Paul,  17 

Use  in  John,  25 

Second  Coming,  230 

Sermon  on  Mount,  9 

Signs  in  Fourth  gospel,  223 

Simon,  Richard,  35 

Spirit,  Doctrine  of  the,  17,  67,  101, 

156,  220 

Subscriptions,  233 
Superstitious  Judaism,  93  f. 
Symeon,  son  of  Clopas,  105 
Synoptic  writings,  44,  107 

writings  in  John,  228 

Syria  and  Cilicia,  61,  129 

Teaching  of  the  twelve,  28,  63,  185 
Tertullian,  19,  29 
Thessalonian  Epistles,  73 
Timothy  (See  Pastoral  Epistles),  78 
Titus  (See  Pastoral  Epistles) 
Transfiguration,  165,  167,  228,  230 
Tubingen  School,  43  ff. 

Unity  of  the  Church,  70,  103,  120 
'  the  N.  T.,  248 


Way  (=  sect),  8 
Weak  (party  of  the),  45 
Wisdom  of  God,  99,  209,  229 
Wisdom  of  Solomon  (Sap.),  51 
Words  of  Jesus,  19,  129  f.,  144  f. 

Zsihn,  115 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


|BBC,C*      MAR    378 

f»::T  121938 

OCT    31  1947 

24'dL'tttt* 

- 

" 

REC'D  LD 

..,  ~t      »ry\  -1  PM 

JAN  3     G4  * 

• 

in  Dtt 

,nLT>     ^ 

yggpwr^ 

t^EC'O  t*1 

YB  72065 


511J41 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


